Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Virex]

This is just fucking bullshit.

This is the problem with relying heavily on citizen reports of "suspicious activity". Because way too many people in this country still equate brown skin with being suspicious. I'm tired of living in a country full of ignorant-ass xenophobes.

If you were to ask me, I'd prefer being held because of suspicious behavior for what amounts to an afternoon over a plane blowing up, but to each its own I guess.

Yeah, not buying that argument. Sorry. By the same logic, we should all submit to a full cavity search every time we board an airplane, because hey...being fisted by a guy with a latex glove still beats a plane blowing up, right?

Have you ever heard me complain about a full cavity search? I will concede that doing that would be impossible for practical reasons, but it feels rather selfish to demand people to put my feelings of personal comfort above the lives of others.

[RedKing]

This is just fucking bullshit.

This is the problem with relying heavily on citizen reports of "suspicious activity". Because way too many people in this country still equate brown skin with being suspicious. I'm tired of living in a country full of ignorant-ass xenophobes.

If you were to ask me, I'd prefer being held because of suspicious behavior for what amounts to an afternoon over a plane blowing up, but to each its own I guess.

Yeah, not buying that argument. Sorry. By the same logic, we should all submit to a full cavity search every time we board an airplane, because hey...being fisted by a guy with a latex glove still beats a plane blowing up, right?

Have you ever heard me complain about a full cavity search?

Oy.....well, like you said. To each their own.

[Andir]

Let's pick apart her words to construct a bollocks accusation of hate speech, because clearly it is the white man who was the victim here...

I never said that... and I'd appreciate it if you didn't assume.

Redneck is a specific subset of white people.

I can point you to a few songs that would say the same about "nigger".

Considering that your word has an extensive history which says otherwise, those songs would be irrelevant.
Redneck has never meant a specific skin pigment and has always been a sub-group of people who exhibit certain behaviors.

It doesn't matter if you think the song is irrelevant.  It's usage is determinant.  It's used today as a hypocritical meaning just as redneck refers mainly to white lower class derogatory today.

It certainly did just now as RedKing pointed out in that post.

The thing you have to understand about police is that they deal with criminals all day long.  If you give them an ounce of flack, they'll put you on the ground and cuff you.  They do it to protect themselves, being out there day after day with the dirt of society trying everything they can to hurt/kill them at any moment.

No, they don't do that to protect themselves. They do that to vent frustration. You seem to forget, I work with cops and other assorted law enforcement on a daily basis. It's an incredibly stressful and difficult job, but they still have an obligation to perform that job with respect to civil liberties. They're not legally allowed to beat the shit out of someone for "giving them some lip" (but it still happens in places). They're not allowed to cuff and detain someone for hours on end without actually arresting them and without giving them access to legal counsel, to information about *why* they're being detained, etc. This is the kind of bullshit you'd expect to see in a Third World country, not the United States of America.

First Point: I don't "forget" anything.  I don't stalk people here so I don't know what your job is or keep close tabs on who does what.  I talk on a per instance case, how I see it.

Second Point:  I'm sure NONE of them act in defense and obviously, the police in this situation are terrible people.  That's obviously the best thought process to pursue.

Do you think they would have asked a white woman if she was wearing explosives?

Absolutely not... they would have treated her the same way.  To assume that they would treat her different is sort of racist.

If she could speak English?

Same as above.  They have a procedure and a process to handle the situation.  Get the person off the plane and question them.  They aren't going to question the person right there in the seat if someone reported them for suspicious activity.  If anything, I think the police treated her rather well on the plane.  If they thought she was there to do damage, they would have checked for explosives right there in her seat with disregard for her feelings.

If the main targets of interest were the two Indian men,

We don't know that.  Do you have the paperwork that states that fact?  All we know is that there were four people who were detained.  One of them happened to be this woman, who may or may not have been reported for suspicious activity.

Edit: Excuse me... All we know is: "that someone on the plane had reported that the three of us in row 12 were conducting suspicious activity. "

...you're trying to excuse it or redirect the discussion because she used the word "redneck"?!?

This is why we can't have productive conversations.

All I said was that it was ironic that she feels violated for being profiled, while profiling back.  You are assuming... (read the following)

You need to curb your assumptions.

And a few people around here do as well... I'm not sure why I'm being singled out.

[Vector]

I'd be worried about setting off the PTSD of rape survivors.


Andir, you're being singled out because you're the one I noticed.  Other people making rampant assumptions about the behavior of a woman who was unconstitutionally detained (i.e. a victim of bad behavior on the part of the government) does not create a situation where you should do so, as well.

[Willfor]

Andir is sort of right in one way, and completely off the ball in many other ways. If we're moving toward a progressive society, the ideal is that no derogatory speech will be aimed toward any individual based on the group that they are a part of. Period. So this would in fact be a wrong. This, however, is a completely separate conversation, and should be treated as such, being a completely separate wrong from the major one that has occurred. It is entirely possible for there to be many forms of wrong in a given situation, layered, that have different levels of harm associated to them. It should be entirely possible to discuss these without getting on an "us vs them" mentality, as these wrongs are often committed on both sides in every situation.

In this case, the wrongs are heavily weighted toward the side of the ones who detained the woman. That doesn't mean the victim is always blameless, however the victim shouldn't have to be blameless from start to finish to get justice. Especially given that derogatory speech isn't really on the same level as what happened.

[Andir]

Andir is sort of right in one way, and completely off the ball in many other ways. If we're moving toward a progressive society, the ideal is that no derogatory speech will be aimed toward any individual based on the group that they are a part of. Period. So this would in fact be a wrong. This, however, is a completely separate conversation, and should be treated as such, being a completely separate wrong from the major one that has occurred. It is entirely possible for there to be many forms of wrong in a given situation, layered, that have different levels of harm associated to them. It should be entirely possible to discuss these without getting on an "us vs them" mentality, as these wrongs are often committed on both sides in every situation.

In this case, the wrongs are heavily weighted toward the side of the ones who detained the woman. That doesn't mean the victim is always blameless, however the victim shouldn't have to be blameless from start to finish to get justice. Especially given that derogatory speech isn't really on the same level as what happened.

My main points cover the use of her derogatory terms.  I never once said it discredits her experience or person.  I just found it ironic.  Others have assumed that's (e: discrediting her is) my goal.  (By all means though, if you can find where I said she's to blame or is in some way to blame... I'd love to know where.)

[Willfor]

My main points cover the use of her derogatory terms.  I never once said it discredits her experience or person.  I just found it ironic.  Others have assumed that's my goal.  (By all means though, if you can find where I said she's to blame or is in some way to blame... I'd love to know where.)

You need to state this extremely explicitly whenever you jump into a conversation in this manner, otherwise it is assumed to be the opposite. You cannot depend on people assuming that you are not taking someone's side when you're writing an opposing viewpoint, you actually have to do the work of declaring where you're coming from in a conversation. And as your position is a heavy part of how people read your words, declaring it specifically is the best way of keeping people from misunderstanding the context of your words.

[Andir]

My main points cover the use of her derogatory terms.  I never once said it discredits her experience or person.  I just found it ironic.  Others have assumed that's my goal.  (By all means though, if you can find where I said she's to blame or is in some way to blame... I'd love to know where.)

You need to state this extremely explicitly whenever you jump into a conversation in this manner, otherwise it is assumed to be the opposite. You cannot depend on people assuming that you are not taking someone's side when you're writing an opposing viewpoint, you actually have to do the work of declaring where you're coming from in a conversation. And as your position is a heavy part of how people read your words, declaring it specifically is the best way of keeping people from misunderstanding the context of your words.

I did, quite frankly state at the beginning that I felt it was ironic that she was calling them rednecks and calling them out on racial profiling.  I didn't say, "Her argument is totally baseless," or anything of the likes.  People are reading that into the post and it's upsetting that I am the only one "called out" when I did the same previously.

[RedKing]

Do you think they would have asked a white woman if she was wearing explosives?

Absolutely not... they would have treated her the same way.  To assume that they would treat her different is sort of racist.

I see. I have this bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in. Only slightly used.

If she could speak English?

Same as above.  They have a procedure and a process to handle the situation.  Get the person off the plane and question them.  They aren't going to question the person right there in the seat if someone reported them for suspicious activity.  If anything, I think the police treated her rather well on the plane.  If they thought she was there to do damage, they would have checked for explosives right there in her seat with disregard for her feelings.

Answer the question. I didn't ask about where they questioned her, I asked about WHAT they questioned her on. Do you think they would have asked a Caucasian passenger if they could speak English? (especially if the passenger had complied with all their instructions up to this point, and had asked questions in English?)

If the main targets of interest were the two Indian men,

We don't know that.  Do you have the paperwork that states that fact?  All we know is that there were four people who were detained.  One of them happened to be this woman, who may or may not have been reported for suspicious activity.

Re-read the narrative. Most of the questions she was asked revolved around the two men, whether she knew them, whether she had noticed anything suspicious about them, etc. I read the AP release on this incident two days ago, and it mentioned that the flight had been flagged because the two guys each had rather long bathroom breaks, one after the other. That was pretty much it. No mention of a woman or a guy stealing a watch. It's pretty easy to gather that by the time she was talking to the FBI, she had been eliminated as a suspect.

...you're trying to excuse it or redirect the discussion because she used the word "redneck"?!?

This is why we can't have productive conversations.

All I said was that it was ironic that she feels violated for being profiled, while profiling back.  You are assuming... (read the following)

To me, it's not that she was being profiled, it's that she was treated like shit WHILE being profiled. I understand her coming under heightened scrutiny because of the circumstances. Unfortunate, but understandable given this particular set of circumstances. What fucking pisses me off is the actions of the airport rent-a-cops (or Detroit's finest, it's not clear which agency sent in the SRT). If they had detained her politely and had the attitude of the FBI agent (who certainly comes off more sympathetic in her account) of "Yeah, sorry we gotta do this, but we have to follow up on every lead. Let's get this over and you back home." then we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Virex]

The guy stealing a watch was an unrelated incident.
Also, you expect cops to handle a potential terrorist politely? As far as they knew, she could still be a danger to herself or others (especially to herself, as that's why they left her handcuffed in a cell). I understand getting pissed at this, but if you're working with a limited amount of information you better act on that information. The cops after all did thaw after it became clear they were dealing with an incident of overzealous passengers and racial discomfort, but I can't blame them for not taking any chances early on when this wasn't clear at all.

Andir is sort of right in one way, and completely off the ball in many other ways. If we're moving toward a progressive society, the ideal is that no derogatory speech will be aimed toward any individual based on the group that they are a part of. Period. So this would in fact be a wrong. This, however, is a completely separate conversation, and should be treated as such, being a completely separate wrong from the major one that has occurred. It is entirely possible for there to be many forms of wrong in a given situation, layered, that have different levels of harm associated to them. It should be entirely possible to discuss these without getting on an "us vs them" mentality, as these wrongs are often committed on both sides in every situation.

In this case, the wrongs are heavily weighted toward the side of the ones who detained the woman. That doesn't mean the victim is always blameless, however the victim shouldn't have to be blameless from start to finish to get justice. Especially given that derogatory speech isn't really on the same level as what happened.

My main points cover the use of her derogatory terms.  I never once said it discredits her experience or person.  I just found it ironic.  Others have assumed that's my goal.  (By all means though, if you can find where I said she's to blame or is in some way to blame... I'd love to know where.)

If I may be so free as to give you a tip to potentially improve your debate, that last sentence is essentially a flame bait. You're inviting people to blame you for something, which you're bound to take personal (no offence, many do). You might want to avoid those kinds of sentences in the future.

[Leafsnail]

My main points cover the use of her derogatory terms.  I never once said it discredits her experience or person.  I just found it ironic.  Others have assumed that's (e: discrediting her is) my goal.  (By all means though, if you can find where I said she's to blame or is in some way to blame... I'd love to know where.)

Then why have you clearly been arguing a different point?  If you just thought it was ironic and didn't mean to discredit her, why did you say, for instance:

Apparently it's perfectly fine for her to spout off whatever derogatory statements she wants to.

Which seems to imply you think what she said was wrong, or

We don't know if someone reported her for having something that looks like Play-Doh or if they told the authorities that they were saying hateful things toward people.  If she held/showed contempt for those doing the questioning (doing their job...), you better believe they will continue.  We are reading one side of the story.  She could be leaving out whatever she wants.  "But I was perfectly innocent..."

which is clearly trying to discredit her.

[Nadaka]

The guy stealing a watch was an unrelated incident.
Also, you expect cops to handle a potential terrorist politely? As far as they knew, she could still be a danger to herself or others (especially to herself, as that's why they left her handcuffed in a cell). I understand getting pissed at this, but if you're working with a limited amount of information you better act on that information. The cops after all did thaw after it became clear they were dealing with an incident of overzealous passengers and racial discomfort, but I can't blame them for not taking any chances early on when this wasn't clear at all.

Reasonable suspicion still doesn't get them off the hook for making an arrest without reading them their rights.

[Siquo]

They aren't equivalent. The person reported her acted upon the feelings that they perhaps shared. The author didn't outwardly act, only had an emotional response to her situation. They might have begun the same, but their outcomes were very different.

Yeah, you're right, there's a difference.

Let's pick apart her words to construct a bollocks accusation of hate speech, because clearly it is the white man who was the victim here...

Strawman. You know damn well what is being meant here.

Considering that your word has an extensive history which says otherwise, those songs would be irrelevant.
Redneck has never meant a specific skin pigment and has always been a sub-group of people who exhibit certain behaviors.

I'm curious now, is there such a thing as a black redneck? Or a white nigger, for that matter? Google indicates there are approximately 190,000 "white niggers" vs 37,000 "black rednecks", making "redneck" even more colour-relevant than "nigger". I know it's ALL the white man's fault  , but if you want equality, you should start treating slurs equally.

Leafsnail, you're nitpicking on Andir, jumping on a bandwagon of nitpicking even, and I can't really blame him for sounding more defensive in every post.
This thread will be locked in 24 hours if this continues again. Your argument is "Seems to imply", which is putting words into his mouth (AGAIN), and pointing out it's one side of a story is not discrediting someone, it's pointing out that it's one side of a story.

[Virex]

Not reading her her rights would constitute an error in practices, not a case of race hatred or maltreatment. I also do not know the normal procedures surrounding potential terrorists, they may want to avoid giving any information whatsoever until some things have been cleared up.

[Phmcw]

This is just fucking bullshit.

This is the problem with relying heavily on citizen reports of "suspicious activity". Because way too many people in this country still equate brown skin with being suspicious. I'm tired of living in a country full of ignorant-ass xenophobes.

If you were to ask me, I'd prefer being held because of suspicious behaviour for what amounts to an afternoon over a plane blowing up, but to each its own I guess.

Well and I prefer being raped than see my family being tortured to death. But since that is not a choice situation (held people without as much as a clue that they may be terrorist won't help deter terrorism), that is irrelevant.

We don't have a tenth of the security measure the US have, and we are much more exposed to Muslims fanatics than them. Surprise!!! we don't have more terrorism than them. Actually, we have less, probably because we take "freedom of speech" differently.