ChatterBank0 min ago
Michael Leary - Racial Profiling
Michael Leary has been accused of encouraging racism.
https:/
But he's right, isn't he?
When it comes to safety, what's wrong with profiling?
https:/
But he's right, isn't he?
When it comes to safety, what's wrong with profiling?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Deskdiary. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
retrocop - // Just to muddy the waters - Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the 'underwear bomber' is Nigerian.
With a name like that you will be telling us he is Jewish next. //
Is that an attempt at humour?
Why would I be telling you that a man with a clearly Arabic name is Jewish?
In actual fact of course, I would not be 'telling you' anything of the sort - I don't go for racial stereotyping in the way that you do.
With a name like that you will be telling us he is Jewish next. //
Is that an attempt at humour?
Why would I be telling you that a man with a clearly Arabic name is Jewish?
In actual fact of course, I would not be 'telling you' anything of the sort - I don't go for racial stereotyping in the way that you do.
naomi - // Oh no! We've hit a snag! One bomber might be a woman! Oh well, good enough reason to wave everyone through with no checks at all. :o/ //
That is clearly neither what I said, or what I meant, and you know that, which is why you are being mischievous, or, in your own idiom, silly.
No checking system is faultless, but the notion that you start overtly targeting devout Muslim men because of their appearance simply plays into the propaganda of Islamists.
How much would they delight in the evidence that what they believe is true - that Westerners hate and fear Islam, and should be resisted with Jihad - because here are Westerners persecuting innocent Muslim men based purely on the visible evidence of their faith.
The point I am making is that the system has to be discreet and carefully controlled, and not advertised in a honking great PR stunt by an airline chairman.
That is clearly neither what I said, or what I meant, and you know that, which is why you are being mischievous, or, in your own idiom, silly.
No checking system is faultless, but the notion that you start overtly targeting devout Muslim men because of their appearance simply plays into the propaganda of Islamists.
How much would they delight in the evidence that what they believe is true - that Westerners hate and fear Islam, and should be resisted with Jihad - because here are Westerners persecuting innocent Muslim men based purely on the visible evidence of their faith.
The point I am making is that the system has to be discreet and carefully controlled, and not advertised in a honking great PR stunt by an airline chairman.
AH - you’re quite keen on the ‘so’ rule. It’s your rule and you’ve employed it countless times.
Can I introduce a ‘whataboutery’ rule? A rule that states a poster will post a whataboutery scenario or question that that is entirely irrelevant to the question
Posed.
If we can do this, then, AH, you’d be guilty of it.
And not a single ‘So’ anywhere.
Can I introduce a ‘whataboutery’ rule? A rule that states a poster will post a whataboutery scenario or question that that is entirely irrelevant to the question
Posed.
If we can do this, then, AH, you’d be guilty of it.
And not a single ‘So’ anywhere.
What Michael O’Leary appears to overlook is the fact that it’s the innocuous looking family that might have had something planted on them. He seems to me to be coming more from the angle that wants actually less stringent security for certain types of passenger. But I think that shows a misunderstanding of how security at airports works. I’m sure that the security staff know perfectly well that certain passengers are less likely intentionally to be carrying explosives etc. They aren’t idiots.
I’d be surprised if it’s political correctness that demands all passengers be subject to a minimum
level of checks that are after all still very strict.
I’d be surprised if it’s political correctness that demands all passengers be subject to a minimum
level of checks that are after all still very strict.
Dd, assuming I am getting the right post... it says "Deskdiary - Would you, as a white man, consent to being profiled at an airport because a number of white men are rapists/murderers/thieves/sex abusers - delete as you wish?"
I am sure you would totally understand being stopped and checked for those reasons, as they are the most likely. Wouldn't you?
I am sure you would totally understand being stopped and checked for those reasons, as they are the most likely. Wouldn't you?
Deskdiary - // AH - you’re quite keen on the ‘so’ rule. It’s your rule and you’ve employed it countless times.
Can I introduce a ‘whataboutery’ rule? A rule that states a poster will post a whataboutery scenario or question that that is entirely irrelevant to the question
Posed.
If we can do this, then, AH, you’d be guilty of it.
And not a single ‘So’ anywhere. //
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about!
The 'So' Rule is a light-hearted attempt to point out where posters start a post with the word 'So', as in "So what you're saying is …" and then they say something the poster has not actually said at all, and then fall out with the poster over something they did not say.
It bears no resemblance whatsoever to the nonsense you are offering, so I suggest you stick to the thread - or come back when you have figured out what you actually mean.
Can I introduce a ‘whataboutery’ rule? A rule that states a poster will post a whataboutery scenario or question that that is entirely irrelevant to the question
Posed.
If we can do this, then, AH, you’d be guilty of it.
And not a single ‘So’ anywhere. //
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about!
The 'So' Rule is a light-hearted attempt to point out where posters start a post with the word 'So', as in "So what you're saying is …" and then they say something the poster has not actually said at all, and then fall out with the poster over something they did not say.
It bears no resemblance whatsoever to the nonsense you are offering, so I suggest you stick to the thread - or come back when you have figured out what you actually mean.
Ok - even though it’s an entirely irrelevant question, a complete whataboutery question, I’ll try to answer it as objectively as I can.
IF the safety in the air perception we currently have was due to white middle aged males, I would be happy for white middle aged males to be profiled.
But it’s not white middle aged males, is it. Which makes your question totally pointless.
IF the safety in the air perception we currently have was due to white middle aged males, I would be happy for white middle aged males to be profiled.
But it’s not white middle aged males, is it. Which makes your question totally pointless.
Deskdiary - // IF the safety in the air perception we currently have was due to white middle aged males, I would be happy for white middle aged males to be profiled.
But it’s not white middle aged males, is it. Which makes your question totally pointless. //
What pixie is offering you is an opportunity to imagine that you, on the basis of race, skin colour and general appearance, were subject to this level of analysis, how would you feel about it?
It's called putting yourself in the other person's position to see how it would feel to you - sorry if that's too complex a concept for you.
But it’s not white middle aged males, is it. Which makes your question totally pointless. //
What pixie is offering you is an opportunity to imagine that you, on the basis of race, skin colour and general appearance, were subject to this level of analysis, how would you feel about it?
It's called putting yourself in the other person's position to see how it would feel to you - sorry if that's too complex a concept for you.
What if white middle aged men were hi-jacking most of the planes?
What if white middle aged men were being profiled?
Sure sounds like whataboutery to me.
Personally, If it did annoy me, I'd blame the white middle-aged men who were hi-jacking planes, not the security staff/rules.
But, anyway, despite Pixie believing everything is the fault of white middle aged men (she did a course) it isn't and neither is this.
It really is moot.
What if white middle aged men were being profiled?
Sure sounds like whataboutery to me.
Personally, If it did annoy me, I'd blame the white middle-aged men who were hi-jacking planes, not the security staff/rules.
But, anyway, despite Pixie believing everything is the fault of white middle aged men (she did a course) it isn't and neither is this.
It really is moot.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.