Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[WicketView]

I have not managed to read all the posts on this thread, though I followed some of the earlier parts of it. Though I don't think I am thinking something that Ruchir etc. have not been, I probably would have tried to phrase the reply to Flute differently.

The profiling in both cases, whether in an interview or security is similar. The point is resources are limited. And one must take a decision on how much of resources to pour into the issue (either stopping people from getting into the country, or getting the best candidate). If you spend enough time on an interview you will probably be able to distinguish candidates, and if you follow each person in the country you will ensure safety too. Needless to say, both may be hopelessly impractical. That is when profiling can be very useful, even though one must keep in mind it is not a full proof solution.

[flute]

I still don't understand why they are different. Both involve generalisations. It is not as if Jones denied Amla a spot or anything like that based on his generalization. So why are they different?

are you serious? so in your book, saying "blacks generally are poor and under educated with high rates of crime" is same as telling a particular black person that he must be an uneducated poor criminal?
isn't it obvious?

anyway, why are you assuming that Amla case involves generalization? generalization is to make observations on something about a community, prejudice is to take that generalization and apply it to a specific person. 

Not sure how extra , ultra politically correct you are, but personally I don't mind someone telling general facts about India, things like india is poor with high corruption etc. I will take serious view of things if someone applies that to me specifically.

[inoc]

Wow

Don’t know where to begin. Let me start with types of racism.

The two, having already been discussed here:
1.   Personalised.  The kind of individual hatred towards niggers, or for that matter baniya’s, madrassis’ and bongs etc. All are against the LAW.
It exists even now, despite the progress and not sure it is any more or less prevalent in India, as in the rest of the world. you may attach some numbers here, like 9 and 4 and 7.5, but essentially they are just numbers.

There are many other categories of hatred in the different parts of the world, which a strict black or white or casteism would not encompass. They are essentially the same any way.

A personal decision based on colour/caste/creed is now not allowed legally.

OUTLAWED

2.   Institutionalised.  This is a collective failure to avoid discrimination.

Some here on the basis of their posts are guilty of this.

OUTLAWED, nevertheless.


And then, there is the not mentioned - internalised racism.

This is the acceptance of the once, ‘discriminated’, group of individuals, of their ‘apparent’ low worth. 

Unfortunately, that is what I read here from some of the valiant supporters of – ‘racism is on the decline’, theory.

Lots more needs to be discussed, but I will await responses. This is better than highlight all the numerous posts.

[keep-it-cool]

I still don't understand why they are different. Both involve generalisations. It is not as if Jones denied Amla a spot or anything like that based on his generalization. So why are they different?

are you serious? so in your book, saying "blacks generally are poor and under educated with high rates of crime" is same as telling a particular black person that he must be an uneducated poor criminal?
isn't it obvious?

anyway, why are you assuming that Amla case involves generalization? generalization is to make observations on something about a community, prejudice is to take that generalization and apply it to a specific person. 

Not sure how extra , ultra politically correct you are, but personally I don't mind someone telling general facts about India, things like india is poor with high corruption etc. I will take serious view of things if someone applies that to me specifically.

Saying India is poor or corrupt or a black is a poor criminial is not the same as "ingrained DNA based incapability" of doing something or the other, which is what you said in your post. That is more like saying that blacks have an ingrained DNA of being a criminal.

[flute]

I still don't understand why they are different. Both involve generalisations. It is not as if Jones denied Amla a spot or anything like that based on his generalization. So why are they different?

are you serious? so in your book, saying "blacks generally are poor and under educated with high rates of crime" is same as telling a particular black person that he must be an uneducated poor criminal?
isn't it obvious?

anyway, why are you assuming that Amla case involves generalization? generalization is to make observations on something about a community, prejudice is to take that generalization and apply it to a specific person. 

Not sure how extra , ultra politically correct you are, but personally I don't mind someone telling general facts about India, things like india is poor with high corruption etc. I will take serious view of things if someone applies that to me specifically.

Saying India is poor or corrupt or a black is a poor criminial is not the same as "ingrained DNA based incapability" of doing something or the other, which is what you said in your post. That is more like saying that blacks have an ingrained DNA of being a criminal.

I said DNA based was wrong usage already, no? you were still not able to see difference after that post..why are you going back to that again if my previous post was still not making you see the difference?

[keep-it-cool]

That is exactly what I was talking about. Everyone typecasts, generalises based on origin subconsciously or consciously. And acts on it - some do by rejecting job candidates, others by making public statements.

[flute]

That is exactly what I was talking about. Everyone typecasts, generalises based on origin subconsciously or consciously. And acts on it - some do by rejecting job candidates, others by making public statements.

now you don't make sense....I think you need to decide first if you agree with my point that generalization is different from actual discrimination. You seem to go back and forth. In one post you said you don't see any difference inspite of my clarification and after my specific exmaple, you went back to my DNA usage, now you are back again..decide already please and based on that I will respond.

anyway, if everyone does it, it doesn't make it right mind you.

[keep-it-cool]

I am saying that once you agree that a generalization is accurate, acting or not acting on it does not change anything.

[Shukla]

Maybe I can add to this discussion by narrating my own recruiting experiences.

I am just finishing my graduate school, and was actively recruiting for about 2 months. As part of the recruitment process, I interviewed with a lot of companies that come to campus. Some of my interviewers were Indians, and I felt an overwhelming sense of going having to go 'above and beyond' in those interviews. Of course, I tried to do my best in every interview, but the lingering impression I have was that I was spending a significant time in some Indian interviews 'justifying authenticity', more than having a conversation about my interests, abilities and how I can contribute to the companies. I felt that this was wasteful. Again, this was the case only in a handful of interviews (guess when my interviewer happened to think more like Ruchir/CP). In the interest of full disclosure, my interviewers for companies where I interned as well as where I will join full-time, were Indians and thorough gentlemen who were not judging me in ways CP/Ruchir would. In all honesty, this is one of the reasons that I chose to join those companies.

This is the perspective of the aforementioned 'A'. I hope it looks different when 'A' is more than a caricature. 'A' is a person whose entire future might be at stake in the interview. It would be awfully cruel if this caricatured 'A' is judged on anything that the person entering the interview room before him did.

Now, to further bring out my point of view, I always do well to remember that there is always a bigger fish. Generalizations can be done at so many levels. It would be awfully wrong of me to say/think that in my experience I find 'IT' guys extremely unsophisticated in comparison to humanities students or say architects/bankers. Ruchir has mentioned that he works in the IT industry. Perhaps CP too. How would they feel if they are excluded from something based on the fact that some people might believe in this generalization. Or even simpler, how would they feel if their interviewer felt like this when they interviewed?

Aside, is it possible that WN/Flute/CP accuse Indian candidates of institutionalized lying because they interview more Indians?

[LosingNow]

Aside, is it possible that WN accuse Indian candidates of institutionalized lying because they interview more Indians?

Look at what I said again ..specially the bolded portions..and answer your question for yourself
--
most of the egregious and damaging lying I have encountered has been in India recruiting..for which we have good people, systems and checks in place to catch them. While recruiting here, we rely heavily on referrals/references and tests, wherever possible.. which mitigates the lying issue and most importantly, the "interviewing process" error. Selection through interviewing process is highly error-prone from an outcomes perspective. There are HR studies that show that selection processes that rely only on interviewing have only 50% success in hiring employees who contribute in the long term.
--

[Cover Point]

Maybe I can add to this discussion by narrating my own recruiting experiences.

I am just finishing my graduate school, and was actively recruiting for about 2 months. As part of the recruitment process, I interviewed with a lot of companies that come to campus. Some of my interviewers were Indians, and I felt an overwhelming sense of going having to go 'above and beyond' in those interviews. Of course, I tried to do my best in every interview, but the lingering impression I have was that I was spending a significant time in some Indian interviews 'justifying authenticity', more than having a conversation about my interests, abilities and how I can contribute to the companies. I felt that this was wasteful. Again, this was the case only in a handful of interviews (guess when my interviewer happened to think more like Ruchir/CP). In the interest of full disclosure, my interviewers for companies where I interned as well as where I will join full-time, were Indians and thorough gentlemen who were not judging me in ways CP/Ruchir would. In all honesty, this is one of the reasons that I chose to join those companies.

This is the perspective of the aforementioned 'A'. I hope it looks different when 'A' is more than a caricature. 'A' is a person whose entire future might be at stake in the interview. It would be awfully cruel if this caricatured 'A' is judged on anything that the person entering the interview room before him did.

Now, to further bring out my point of view, I always do well to remember that there is always a bigger fish. Generalizations can be done at so many levels. It would be awfully wrong of me to say/think that in my experience I find 'IT' guys extremely unsophisticated in comparison to humanities students or say architects/bankers. Ruchir has mentioned that he works in the IT industry. Perhaps CP too. How would they feel if they are excluded from something based on the fact that some people might believe in this generalization. Or even simpler, how would they feel if their interviewer felt like this when they interviewed?

Aside, is it possible that WN/Flute/CP accuse Indian candidates of institutionalized lying because they interview more Indians?

the last sentence is not true. Our company in general does not sponsor H1's (they make exceptions for exceptional candidates) so the ratio of indians to others is what you would normally expect.

To come to your point, I agree it sucks to be in that position. And I have myself been subjected to extra scrutiny since I am Indian. I dont see anything wrong with it. See, the difference is that I am not saying we discriminate BUT ANY candidate should be able to withstand extra scrutiny. If you are good you will get through. The fact that some other candidate did NOT have to go through that extra layer should not have an impact on me.

To get a good job, one should be able to withstand any/all scrutiny. I expect that going into the interview. I also feel I can convince the interviewer of my skills and honesty.

[flute]

I am saying that once you agree that a generalization is accurate, acting or not acting on it does not change anything.

you still don't make sense..do you really think world can operate without generelizations? You did not respond to my reply #81 adequately to make your point with clarity, you simply went back to DNA reference. If DNA reference is no longer the issue and if you still disagree with me, you need to respond to my below post. If you have a point to make, I expect you to make it elaborate enough for me to understand instead of single sentence pronouncements plz. 

re you serious? so in your book, saying "blacks generally are poor and under educated with high rates of crime" is same as telling a particular black person that he must be an uneducated poor criminal?
isn't it obvious?

anyway, why are you assuming that Amla case involves generalization? generalization is to make observations on something about a community, prejudice is to take that generalization and apply it to a specific person. 

Not sure how extra , ultra politically correct you are, but personally I don't mind someone telling general facts about India, things like india is poor with high corruption etc. I will take serious view of things if someone applies that to me specifically.

[flute]

Aside, is it possible that WN/Flute/CP accuse Indian candidates of institutionalized lying because they interview more Indians?

institutionalized lying? I accused? dude, I don't even know what is institutionalized lying..what exactly do you mean?

all I know is that based on my personal experience across the spectrum, indians seem to exhibit a greater tendency to lie on their resume. Not only lying but also general scruples in dealing with the other person ( in business/professional settings) are very low as long as you don't know that person. Indians I recruited based on personal references are much more loyal & fair to you compared to total strangers (indian).

[keep-it-cool]

@Flute, I did not respond because I am not interested in debating semantics. All I demonstrated the first time by referring to your words is that most ppl generalise - often based on nationality and other factors - and act on it. Yes, your making a public statement on a DG is also acting in my books.

Also, I believe that if you do believe that a particular generalisation is true, then acting on it is also often the most practical thing to do.

That is all I have to say ...don't see the scope to elaborate any more.

[flute]

@Flute, I did not respond because I am not interested in debating semantics. All I demonstrated the first time by referring to your words is that most ppl generalise - often based on nationality and other factors - and act on it. Yes, your making a public statement on a DG is also acting in my books.

Also, I believe that if you do believe that a particular generalisation is true, then acting on it is also often the most practical thing to do.

That is all I have to say ...don't see the scope to elaborate any more.

your post doesn't make sense to me especially if you refuse to respond to a specific case I pointed out. If you are not interested in elaborating, then it usually means you are not clear in your thinking. You really should not venture into this if you do not have the patience to elaborate on your points.

think about it, going by your logic, it is most often practical to act on your generalization for you, so, do you support discrimination at work place based on your generelization or do you think you can go thru life without generelization? you think things like developed nation, under developed nation, poor country, poor community, poor neighbourhood etc. are anathema and are same as "terrorist" usage for Amla? going by your single sentence posts, the answers is yes. Are you for real?

[inoc]

To come to your point, I agree it sucks to be in that position. And I have myself been subjected to extra scrutiny since I am Indian.

That is racism my bondhu.
Your white colleague does not face that extra scrutiny.

I dont see anything wrong with it.

really?

See, the difference is that I am not saying we discriminate BUT ANY candidate should be able to withstand extra scrutiny.

now you are suggesting that being an Indian (since Indians lie - a debatable conclusion) you should scrutinise Indians more so than whites.

Classic example of internalised racism.

If you are good you will get through.

Is that so? I thought the good Indian had to get through better scrutiny.

The fact that some other candidate did NOT have to go through that extra layer should not have an impact on me.

Why? Americans don't lie? COME ON.

To get a good job, one should be able to withstand any/all scrutiny. I expect that going into the interview. I also feel I can convince the interviewer of my skills and honesty.

Absolutely true, but you being an Indian, ask another Indian to pass a scrutiny the American did not have to go through. you a racist or what? Since the last paragraph quoted was in the first person, how would you have reacted to the classless American society denying you a job based on lying Indians?

[Cover Point]

To come to your point, I agree it sucks to be in that position. And I have myself been subjected to extra scrutiny since I am Indian.

That is racism my bondhu.
Your white colleague does not face that extra scrutiny.

big deal. Extra scrutiny I said ....  NOT denial of rights. If I have done no wrong, why do I care about the scrutiny? What am I trying to hide? You guys are deliberately not understanding or what? If I deserve a job, I should be able to withstand scrutiny to ensure that I am qualified. And thats all that is being scrutinized... whether I am qualified or not. No one asks me to have a PHD to a white guys Masters. THAT would be racism. This is just someone ensuring that the mba I claim to have, is a real one. If I have nothing to hide why the Eff would I care? And the fact that a white guy gets in with a fake MBA (gets away with a crime) should affect me why?

Put another way ... since some criminals get away with murder, they should stop prosecuting everyone for murder?

I dont see anything wrong with it.

really?

yes really. As Ruchir said, if it was possible to scrutinize everyone it should be done. BUT that is not always possible, so you pick and choose. It was silly that Al Gore gets picked out of the airport line in the name of random screening while Abdullah gets by. God gave some (non Gangulians) a brain .... its ok to use it.

See, the difference is that I am not saying we discriminate BUT ANY candidate should be able to withstand extra scrutiny.

now you are suggesting that being an Indian (since Indians lie - a debatable conclusion) you should scrutinise Indians more so than whites.
Classic example of internalised racism.

If you dont believe that then you dont do it. You come to your own conclusions. I am just saying that MY experience is that Indians are bigger liars than others so due diligence should be performed.

If you are good you will get through.

Is that so? I thought the good Indian had to get through better scrutiny.

I will say that again. If you are good, you will get through. If you dont make it past the better scrutiny then you are not good. you are a liar who gets caught. Why is that NOT clear?

The fact that some other candidate did NOT have to go through that extra layer should not have an impact on me.

Why? Americans don't lie? COME ON.

who said that? You must be from the school where when someone says that is NOT white .... oh so you are saying it is BLACK? Bondhu, basic English again?

To get a good job, one should be able to withstand any/all scrutiny. I expect that going into the interview. I also feel I can convince the interviewer of my skills and honesty.

Absolutely true, but you being an Indian, ask another Indian to pass a scrutiny the American did not have to go through. you a racist or what? Since the last paragraph quoted was in the first person, how would you have reacted to the classless American society denying you a job based on lying Indians?

again poor example. I said we should be able to go through extra scrutiny. If I am not a liar (or a gangulian) then why would I be denied? Why am I afraid of the extra scrutiny? What am I trying to hide ?

you are confusing extra scrutiny to something else. The fact that someone else gets less scrutiny has no impact on MY skills or whether I have lied or not!

[keep-it-cool]

@Flute, I did not respond because I am not interested in debating semantics. All I demonstrated the first time by referring to your words is that most ppl generalise - often based on nationality and other factors - and act on it. Yes, your making a public statement on a DG is also acting in my books.

Also, I believe that if you do believe that a particular generalisation is true, then acting on it is also often the most practical thing to do.

That is all I have to say ...don't see the scope to elaborate any more.

your post doesn't make sense to me especially if you refuse to respond to a specific case I pointed out. If you are not interested in elaborating, then it usually means you are not clear in your thinking. You really should not venture into this if you do not have the patience to elaborate on your points.

think about it, going by your logic, it is most often practical to act on your generalization for you, so, do you support discrimination at work place based on your generelization or do you think you can go thru life without generelization? you think things like developed nation, under developed nation, poor country, poor community, poor neighbourhood etc. are anathema and are same as "terrorist" usage for Amla? going by your single sentence posts, the answers is yes. Are you for real?

Firstly, clarity of thought is not necessarily reflected in elaborations. Often it is the other way round. I have stated what I feel in very simple terms ...nothing more to elaborate.

I never said no to labels. I simply pointed out to your useage of "DNA induced" or some such term to assign a quality to Indians. Take the same labels that you used and add DNA induced in front and you are as racist as Dean Jones calling Hasim Amla a terrorist. You yourself later mentioned that you were wrong to do so. That was the end of the matter as far as I am concerned. Btw even Dean Jones mentioned that what he said was in jest.

As far as generalisations are concerned, I try not to make them as far as possible. But once I am convinced that a certain generalisation is accurate more often that not, I dont see anything odd in playing the odds and going along with it. Some may call it racist or unfair or whatever, it does not matter. The question should be whether the generalisation is fair and made after enough thought process / past experience ...not the acting on it. If the former is fair and accurate, the latter should not even be in question. That is what CP and Ruchir have been trying to state ..that is what I have tried to state in multiple posts ...and, as I said, there is nothing really to elaborate beyond this - as far as I am concerned.

[flute]

@Flute, I did not respond because I am not interested in debating semantics. All I demonstrated the first time by referring to your words is that most ppl generalise - often based on nationality and other factors - and act on it. Yes, your making a public statement on a DG is also acting in my books.

Also, I believe that if you do believe that a particular generalisation is true, then acting on it is also often the most practical thing to do.

That is all I have to say ...don't see the scope to elaborate any more.

your post doesn't make sense to me especially if you refuse to respond to a specific case I pointed out. If you are not interested in elaborating, then it usually means you are not clear in your thinking. You really should not venture into this if you do not have the patience to elaborate on your points.

think about it, going by your logic, it is most often practical to act on your generalization for you, so, do you support discrimination at work place based on your generelization or do you think you can go thru life without generelization? you think things like developed nation, under developed nation, poor country, poor community, poor neighbourhood etc. are anathema and are same as "terrorist" usage for Amla? going by your single sentence posts, the answers is yes. Are you for real?

Firstly, clarity of thought is not necessarily reflected in elaborations. Often it is the other way round. I have stated what I feel in very simple terms ...nothing more to elaborate.

I never said no to labels. I simply pointed out to your useage of "DNA induced" or some such term to assign a quality to Indians. Take the same labels that you used and add DNA induced in front and you are as racist as Dean Jones calling Hasim Amla a terrorist. You yourself later mentioned that you were wrong to do so. That was the end of the matter as far as I am concerned. Btw even Dean Jones mentioned that what he said was in jest.

As far as generalisations are concerned, I try not to make them as far as possible. But once I am convinced that a certain generalisation is accurate more often that not, I dont see anything odd in playing the odds and going along with it. Some may call it racist or unfair or whatever, it does not matter. The question should be whether the generalisation is fair and made after enough thought process / past experience ...not the acting on it. If the former is fair and accurate, the latter should not even be in question. That is what CP and Ruchir have been trying to state ..that is what I have tried to state in multiple posts ...and, as I said, there is nothing really to elaborate beyond this - as far as I am concerned.

the problem is you kept going back and forth and never clearly mention if you are against generalizations or actions based on generalizations. In fact, IMO, you still appear to be contradictory and confused about this issue.

now coming to generalizations,

If the former is fair and accurate, the latter should not even be in question.

are you serious? generalization by definition is inaccurate, you are applying something to a whole group based on a sample. To then take this generalization and then apply it to a specific individual and then think that fair & accurate generelization will somehow make your action fair is BS in my books.

Generelization is useful when you are trying to derive broad opinions/policies about a community. When I said Indians historically lacked the ability to build strong, efficient political & administrative systems, it was a generalized opinion, which we can then  further debated and if found to be accurate can be useful in arriving at ways/methods of alleviating this weakness. Community and/or ethnic based administrative, economic etc. policies can be arrived at based on these generalizations. Generalized observations in my book are useful when we seek to operate at that level. To take generelized observations and seek to apply it to a specific case is foolish and is not fair and is definitely racist if applied to a race.


Contradictory & confused?

In fact, thats exactly what Dean Jones did in Hashim Amla case. He took his generelized observation and applied it to a specific case. Applying your logic, Dean Jones did the right thing unless youe think his generalization was wrong to begin with. Now, who decides if his generalization is wrong? YOU?

Have a poll on this DG right now, almost 9 out 10 on this DG are sure to answer yes to a simple question "Is a muslim more likely to be a terrorist compared to other communities?". Based on available evidence, the answer is a resounding yes to the above question unless you want to live in make believe world. Going by your logic, Dean Jones took this generalization and applied it to Hashim Amla. So, in fact, your stand seem to support Dean Jones logically but I don't think you agree with it going by how you objected to my DNA usage? don't you think you are contradicting yourself and is also confused?

[keep-it-cool]

I said, IF a generalisation is fair / accurate, there is no harm acting on it. Anyone with a beard is a terrorist is a flawed generalisation in the first place. Hence there is no question of debating whether what Dean Jones said is right or wrong.

The interview or airport security situation is about playing the odds.

In general, Indians are found to lie more often than others ...if you agree with this, I find it difficult to see why any prospective employer should not choose someone else over one if both are unknown and appear to have similar skill sets. It is somewhat similar to companies going to the best B schools to pick trainees ...they are not saying that no one from other B schools is good ...just that the odds favour going to the better ones.

In general, terrorists have been found to be of one particular religion in recent times. I see nothing wrong with picking more of them for extra scrutiny in airports.

I dont see where I am going back or forth on these things ...am just keeping it simple. Three simple steps a) Avoid generalisations as far as possible; b) however, nothing wrong with generalisations AS LONG AS they are fair & reasonable / unavoidable; b) once you are convinced on c, there is nothing wrong in acting on them.

[flute]

I said, IF a generalisation is fair / accurate, there is no harm acting on it. Anyone with a beard is a terrorist is a flawed generalisation in the first place. Hence there is no question of debating whether what Dean Jones said is right or wrong.

did Dean Jones tell you that he thought Amla is terrorist because of his beard? may be he assumed because of his name and religion? Isn't that flowing from your other example of picking people from certain religion for scrutiny? if you can pick them for extra scrutiny, what's wrong in Dean jones caling Amla a terrorist based on the same generalization? where do you draw line?

assuming it was all about beard, why is "anyone with a beard is a terrorist" a flawed generalization, based on your experience, right? if that is flawed for you, may be it is not so for Dean Jones. May be , pretty much EVERY bearded person he ever heard of, talked to or read about are terrorists, if you can generalize based on religion and apply it to specific individual, why does he not have the right to generalize based on beard?

[keep-it-cool]

The diff between calling someone a terrorist and picking someone for extra scrutiny is plainly obvious. Those picked for extra scrutiny are not deemed to be terrorists.

Of course, as with most things in life, what is wrong and right will be subjective and different from person to person. You live and act by your thoughts / actions and face the consequences, if any. Attempting to fit everything into one mould is silly and over simplistic.

[Cover Point]

exactly. scrutiny does not mean conviction.

This is one thing i have never understood about the liberal side. What is the problem with some extra selective scrutiny. If one has not done anything wrong they should welcome the scrutiny.

[flute]

exactly. scrutiny does not mean conviction.

This is one thing i have never understood about the liberal side. What is the problem with some extra selective scrutiny. If one has not done anything wrong they should welcome the scrutiny.

coming to some extra scrutiny thing..well, I don't know about you, but I would feel insulted if someone picked me for extra scrutiny based on my nationality or religion..its humiliating and insulting for sure. I don't think you did be completely honest if you as an indian think it is ok if you are picked for strip search purely based on your nationality. It is not only insulting to you but also insulting to your country. What they are saying by that extra scrutiny is that your country, your religion is SUSPECT. Any self respecting person will feel atleast resentment. You must be from a different planet if you don't understand why they resent it.

anyway, where do you stop?

based on KIC logic, if the original generalization is fair ( in this case fair as supported by you & kic), nothing wrong in taking below actions, right?

a. everyone else refuse to fly if there are any arabs or muslims on the flight. After all your life is more important, no?
b. have separate lines at the airport for muslims. This makes it easy for air port authorities to screen them thoroughly and streamlines the security procedure for the rest of the nice folks flying, no? shouldn't we support this measure too and why should muslims have any problem with this, they have nothing to hide anyway, right?

c. why not have separate flights for muslims? after all if we know that 99% of the folks who are terrorists are muslims ( which is a fair assessment by KIC standards), WHY let them fly with rest of the folks and risk their lives? WHY. If the original assessment is fair, is it now not commonsense to simply weed them out of general nice, flying folks and give them separate flights? Will you support this measure if there is enough muslim traffic at the airports?

where do you draw the line?


PS: I don't think I can be categorized as a liberal....my opinions vary based on the issue on hand and I do not get compelled to support a position simply because I want to be a right wing or liberal. I simply call it the way I see it. You did be surprised to know that some people think I am an immoral liberal, some other folks think I am a die hard right wing BJP supporter, still others think I am a congress supporter and must have wept when YSR died, gangulians like Kban are sure I hate ganguly because I wanted to prop up my other cricketing heroes only gangulians could not pin point my cricketing God -:). The problem is with people trying to categorize me into some bucket.

[flute]

The diff between calling someone a terrorist and picking someone for extra scrutiny is plainly obvious. Those picked for extra scrutiny are not deemed to be terrorists.

nobody said those picked for extra scrutiny are deemed terrorists. What you are basically telling a particular person when you pick him for extra scrutiny based on his religion is that because of his religion, he is more likely to be a terrorist and hence the extra scrutiny. And you want/expect  people to willingly submit to this extra scrutiny and support this insult  on their own community? are you guys for real?

anyway, what kind of fair, well thought out generalization are you talking about here? even if you apply commonsense, is it not obvious that out of the total billion+ muslim population in the world, not even 1% are terrorists. Did you do your fair , well thought out generalization here, if yes, why do you think your assessment is any different from Dean Jones? personally, I don't see much difference here (dean jones definitively called amla a terrorist while you are calling every muslim a potential threat/suspect and hence the extra scrutiny), no?

[Cover Point]

exactly. scrutiny does not mean conviction.

This is one thing i have never understood about the liberal side. What is the problem with some extra selective scrutiny. If one has not done anything wrong they should welcome the scrutiny.

coming to some extra scrutiny thing..well, I don't know about you, but I would feel insulted if someone picked me for extra scrutiny based on my nationality or religion..its humiliating and insulting for sure. I don't think you did be completely honest if you as an indian think it is ok if you are picked for strip search purely based on your nationality. It is not only insulting to you but also insulting to your country. What they are saying by that extra scrutiny is that your country, your religion is SUSPECT. Any self respecting person will feel atleast resentment. You must be from a different planet if you don't understand why they resent it.

anyway, where do you stop?

based on KIC logic, if the original generalization is fair ( in this case fair as supported by you & kic), nothing wrong in taking below actions, right?

a. everyone else refuse to fly if there are any arabs or muslims on the flight. After all your life is more important, no?
b. have separate lines at the airport for muslims. This makes it easy for air port authorities to screen them thoroughly and streamlines the security procedure for the rest of the nice folks flying, no? shouldn't we support this measure too and why should muslims have any problem with this, they have nothing to hide anyway, right?

c. why not have separate flights for muslims? after all if we know that 99% of the folks who are terrorists are muslims ( which is a fair assessment by KIC standards), WHY let them fly with rest of the folks and risk their lives? WHY. If the original assessment is fair, is it now not commonsense to simply weed them out of general nice, flying folks and give them separate flights? Will you support this measure if there is enough muslim traffic at the airports?

where do you draw the line?


PS: I don't think I can be categorized as a liberal....my opinions vary based on the issue on hand and I do not get compelled to support a position simply because I want to be a right wing or liberal. I simply call it the way I see it. You did be surprised to know that some people think I am an immoral liberal, some other folks think I am a die hard right wing BJP supporter, still others think I am a congress supporter and must have wept when YSR died, gangulians like Kban are sure I hate ganguly because I wanted to prop up my other cricketing heroes only gangulians could not pin point my cricketing God -:). The problem is with people trying to categorize me into some bucket.

why would i be humiliated as long as the scrutiny is legal and done in a proper way. It is a fact that a majority of terrorists trying to harm the US look like you and me. So instead of picking out grandma from the line ... i would prefer they search me or people who look like me. Thats just basic smart. If i have nothing to hide why should i be humiliated?

a sep plane for muslims is discrimination. We are stopping them from doing something. Thats not the case and not what i m proposing. Just they should be ok to go through the same security that is legal and already in place.

[flute]

exactly. scrutiny does not mean conviction.

This is one thing i have never understood about the liberal side. What is the problem with some extra selective scrutiny. If one has not done anything wrong they should welcome the scrutiny.

coming to some extra scrutiny thing..well, I don't know about you, but I would feel insulted if someone picked me for extra scrutiny based on my nationality or religion..its humiliating and insulting for sure. I don't think you did be completely honest if you as an indian think it is ok if you are picked for strip search purely based on your nationality. It is not only insulting to you but also insulting to your country. What they are saying by that extra scrutiny is that your country, your religion is SUSPECT. Any self respecting person will feel atleast resentment. You must be from a different planet if you don't understand why they resent it.

anyway, where do you stop?

based on KIC logic, if the original generalization is fair ( in this case fair as supported by you & kic), nothing wrong in taking below actions, right?

a. everyone else refuse to fly if there are any arabs or muslims on the flight. After all your life is more important, no?
b. have separate lines at the airport for muslims. This makes it easy for air port authorities to screen them thoroughly and streamlines the security procedure for the rest of the nice folks flying, no? shouldn't we support this measure too and why should muslims have any problem with this, they have nothing to hide anyway, right?

c. why not have separate flights for muslims? after all if we know that 99% of the folks who are terrorists are muslims ( which is a fair assessment by KIC standards), WHY let them fly with rest of the folks and risk their lives? WHY. If the original assessment is fair, is it now not commonsense to simply weed them out of general nice, flying folks and give them separate flights? Will you support this measure if there is enough muslim traffic at the airports?

where do you draw the line?


PS: I don't think I can be categorized as a liberal....my opinions vary based on the issue on hand and I do not get compelled to support a position simply because I want to be a right wing or liberal. I simply call it the way I see it. You did be surprised to know that some people think I am an immoral liberal, some other folks think I am a die hard right wing BJP supporter, still others think I am a congress supporter and must have wept when YSR died, gangulians like Kban are sure I hate ganguly because I wanted to prop up my other cricketing heroes only gangulians could not pin point my cricketing God -:). The problem is with people trying to categorize me into some bucket.

why would i be humiliated as long as the scrutiny is legal and done in a proper way. It is a fact that a majority of terrorists trying to harm the US look like you and me. So instead of picking out grandma from the line ... i would prefer they search me or people who look like me. Thats just basic smart. If i have nothing to hide why should i be humiliated?

a sep plane for muslims is discrimination. We are stopping them from doing something. Thats not the case and not what i m proposing. Just they should be ok to go through the same security that is legal and already in place.

you are already discriminating by scrutinizing some people some way and others differently...separate plane is just one more discrimination in my book..anyway, why not do it, isn't a  lil bit of discrimination more acceptable compared to lives lost?
why shouldn't muslims accept separate planes too since it will save lives?

[keep-it-cool]

The diff between calling someone a terrorist and picking someone for extra scrutiny is plainly obvious. Those picked for extra scrutiny are not deemed to be terrorists.

nobody said those picked for extra scrutiny are deemed terrorists. What you are basically telling a particular person when you pick him for extra scrutiny based on his religion is that because of his religion, he is more likely to be a terrorist and hence the extra scrutiny. And you want/expect  people to willingly submit to this extra scrutiny and support this insult  on their own community? are you guys for real?

Yes to all your questions here.

anyway, what kind of fair, well thought out generalization are you talking about here? even if you apply commonsense, is it not obvious that out of the total billion+ muslim population in the world, not even 1% are terrorists. Did you do your fair , well thought out generalization here, if yes, why do you think your assessment is any different from Dean Jones? personally, I don't see much difference here (dean jones definitively called amla a terrorist while you are calling every muslim a potential threat/suspect and hence the extra scrutiny), no?

The difference between a definite terrorist and a possible terrorist is a very big one, no?

[flute]

The difference between a definite terrorist and a possible terrorist is a very big one, no?

for a real terrorist, the difference between a definite terrorist and a possible one is big. Likewise, for an innocent person, the difference between a possible terrorist Vs an ordinary innocent citizen equal with other citizens of the country is  also a big one..no?

personally I would never want to be the citizen of a country where I am subjected to extra scrutiny in every walk of life based on your convoluted fair generalization logic. Based on above, I also never want any of my fellow indians to feel like that and have resentment for India, SO, for me, no profiling at the airports or at the interviews.

You guys are also forgetting that in a country like India with deep rooted discrimination in place, this type of official profiling is a slippery slope and will only lead to more discrimination and more marginalization of muslims from the mainstream.

[keep-it-cool]

The difference between a definite terrorist and a possible terrorist is a very big one, no?

for a real terrorist, the difference between a definite terrorist and a possible one is big. Likewise, for an innocent person, the difference between a possible terrorist Vs an ordinary innocent citizen equal with other citizens of the country is  also a big one..no?

No. Not if it means that the odds of catching one terrorist out of that 1% population goes up.

personally I would never want to be the citizen of a country where I am subjected to extra scrutiny in every walk of life based on your convoluted fair generalization logic. Based on above, I also never want any of my fellow indians to feel like that and have resentment for India, SO, for me, no profiling at the airports or at the interviews.

Of course that is a personal choice. Each one to his own.

You guys are also forgetting that in a country like India with deep rooted discrimination in place, this type of official profiling is a slippery slope and will only lead to more discrimination and more marginalization of muslims from the mainstream.

Not as slippery as succumbing to more terrorist attacks and earning a reputation of being an easy target.

[flute]

Not as slippery as succumbing to more terrorist attacks and earning a reputation of being an easy target.

another gem we are easy targets because we are not profiling? based on many accounts we are already profiling, so we are nto easy target any more?

In my ignorance I thought our being easy target has something to do with dumb header leadership, lack of strategic thinking, lack of guts to take on difficult external tasks ( lack of Indira *hi), in addition, I also thought internally we have too much corruption, unprofessional agencies, nepotism/suck up to higher ups etc. ( in short too many Indira *his)  ..now I know it is all about profile..lets profile away muslims, biharis, bengalis & NE fellow and we are no longer easy targets.

[inoc]

exactly. scrutiny does not mean conviction.

This is one thing i have never understood about the liberal side. What is the problem with some extra selective scrutiny. If one has not done anything wrong they should welcome the scrutiny.

coming to some extra scrutiny thing..well, I don't know about you, but I would feel insulted if someone picked me for extra scrutiny based on my nationality or religion..its humiliating and insulting for sure. I don't think you did be completely honest if you as an indian think it is ok if you are picked for strip search purely based on your nationality. It is not only insulting to you but also insulting to your country. What they are saying by that extra scrutiny is that your country, your religion is SUSPECT. Any self respecting person will feel atleast resentment. You must be from a different planet if you don't understand why they resent it.

anyway, where do you stop?

based on KIC logic, if the original generalization is fair ( in this case fair as supported by you & kic), nothing wrong in taking below actions, right?

a. everyone else refuse to fly if there are any arabs or muslims on the flight. After all your life is more important, no?
b. have separate lines at the airport for muslims. This makes it easy for air port authorities to screen them thoroughly and streamlines the security procedure for the rest of the nice folks flying, no? shouldn't we support this measure too and why should muslims have any problem with this, they have nothing to hide anyway, right?

c. why not have separate flights for muslims? after all if we know that 99% of the folks who are terrorists are muslims ( which is a fair assessment by KIC standards), WHY let them fly with rest of the folks and risk their lives? WHY. If the original assessment is fair, is it now not commonsense to simply weed them out of general nice, flying folks and give them separate flights? Will you support this measure if there is enough muslim traffic at the airports?

where do you draw the line?


PS: I don't think I can be categorized as a liberal....my opinions vary based on the issue on hand and I do not get compelled to support a position simply because I want to be a right wing or liberal. I simply call it the way I see it. You did be surprised to know that some people think I am an immoral liberal, some other folks think I am a die hard right wing BJP supporter, still others think I am a congress supporter and must have wept when YSR died, gangulians like Kban are sure I hate ganguly because I wanted to prop up my other cricketing heroes only gangulians could not pin point my cricketing God -:). The problem is with people trying to categorize me into some bucket.

why would i be humiliated as long as the scrutiny is legal and done in a proper way. It is a fact that a majority of terrorists trying to harm the US look like you and me. So instead of picking out grandma from the line ... i would prefer they search me or people who look like me. Thats just basic smart. If i have nothing to hide why should i be humiliated?

a sep plane for muslims is discrimination. We are stopping them from doing something. Thats not the case and not what i m proposing. Just they should be ok to go through the same security that is legal and already in place.

a story, true story.

In the late '90s, long before 9/11.

We got stuck in Rome for 28 hrs.

We, with Indian passports were were denied transit visas, (khalistan at that time I guess)

a full load of Indians, travelling to Delhi.

every other country passport holder - got a hotel

There were 26 of us, 22 Indian passport holders, 2 indian, but, british passport holders who belonged to the group,  and 2 british passport holders who were travelling with the indians as part of a documentary on indian marriages...... all others went to a hotel, including 50 or so Indians with British Passports.

the 2 indian british  passport holders had family who were not allowed transit visas......o they stayed back.

The 2 british, had developed friends in flight.

The rest of the passengers slept decently in an hotel

WE GOT GENERALISED

terrorists/ khalistanis ....the terror thing at that time.

Do you agree?

Three English guys unknown to ourselves, disagreed with this discrimination, and refused to go to a hotel and spend the 28 hours with us in the airport. I still maintain contact with those guys, because they stand out and are not part of racism that you practise

Generalisation if it pertains to a race is racism, whatever you may sy to disguise it.

CP, if you were not chosen for your job because an American was equally qualified, and you were shunted because Indians lie, you would not be saying this.

I am amazed that you are not only agreeing with it but actually certifying it.

[ruchir]

The rest of the passengers slept decently in an hotel

WE GOT GENERALISED

terrorists/ khalistanis ....the terror thing at that time.

Do you agree?

Three English guys unknown to ourselves, disagreed with this discrimination, and refused to go to a hotel and spend the 28 hours with us in the airport. I still maintain contact with those guys, because they stand out and are not part of racism that you practise

Inoc, can I put my 2 cents in here?

You have to look at this incident from 2 angles:

a) your angle - from your eyes, of course it will look bad, it will look discrimination. Of course you don't want to be put at any discomfort. So at the airport, if security puts you in an uncomfortable position for whatever reason, you WILL feel bad. I completely understand that. You can give your feeling any name, like racism or discrimination.

b) security angle - every govt and a security personnel working for the govt, takes an oath to do everything in their power (of course, legally) to protect their citizens and their nation. Once you have taken that oath and you want to seriously and honestly carry it out, you don't care about the "feelings" of people. If you started caring about "feeling", you wouldn't be able to do your job properly. Have you seen Police of any country care about "feelings" when they arrest someone? Every security person is trained to be dispassionate while carrying out their duties. They are trained to not worry about how the other person is feeling, as long as they are doing their jobs honestly. So, Italy decided that in order to prevent any kind of incident from happening in their country, they would keep travelers of certain countries right there at the airport, probably because they could better monitor them there. From their point of view, they thought this was the best option to prevent any untoward incident. Whether it was really the best option or not can be debated, but at that time, in those circumstances, they thought that was the best option and they carried it out. So if you look from their eyes, they didn't do anything wrong because they were simply trying to prevent any incident from happening.

To the traveler, Italy's action will look like discrimination / racism. To Italian govt, it won't because they were not trying to discriminate with an intention of hurting or harming the travelers. They were doing it with an intention of preventing a possible incident. Call it taking preemptive action.

[adhunikbarbarian]

@ruchir


i am glad you the likes of you were few earlier because i am sure had you been there earlier in India somehow you would have used angles and triangles or god knows what to justify the british colonisation of india which i think you would have favoured

IMO somehow you are more american than the american themselves
one last question, were you always this way or did ultra liberatarian society change your "views"

[Cover Point]

I am going to change my mind and agree with the PM that this adhunikbarbarian maybe Feverpitch. I responded to the PM before reading this one. This seems like the FP pattern.

So FP doesnt even have the guts to post something in his own cyber name?

[adhunikbarbarian]

oh you mean to say that you think also......i am amazed at how much you have evolved since "homo" neanderthalensis age

[Blwe_torch]

http://www.cricketvoice.com/cricketforum2/index.php/topic,23291.0.html

[ruchir]

@ruchir


i am glad you the likes of you were few earlier because i am sure had you been there earlier in India somehow you would have used angles and triangles or god knows what to justify the british colonisation of india which i think you would have favoured

IMO somehow you are more american than the american themselves
one last question, were you always this way or did ultra liberatarian society change your "views"

Dost.... I have only one thing to say in reply --> As a security personnel or security policy maker, I don't mind putting some people at discomfort it I honestly believe that by doing so I would be carrying out my job to the best of my ability (the job being making sure that my nation and it's citizens are safe). As a security personnel or security policy maker, my first and foremost duty is toward my country and the people I serve. If this involves putting some of my own people at discomfort, to ensure larger good, I would do that.

Whether my methods are best or not, that can be debated. But, since I am in the position of providing security or making policy, I will do what I feel is the best way. If you were in my place, you would have done what you felt was the best way.

If I was alive as an Indian in British times, I would have done anything for India and Indians, not the British.

[adhunikbarbarian]

i doubt it seriously

[adhunikbarbarian]

and i think what you would do is make policies change policies and remake them and rechange them..thats all....and to think you are talking about greater good....i think "brain" drain in a way may be good too.