The white Christian types you name should be given all due attention yes.Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
The white Christian types you name should be given all due attention yes.
Yes, weird that everyone is jumping on you.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
And so we're back to you ignoring the evidence presented in this thread as well as in the BLM thread.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
What evidence?
I would like to refer both of the village idiots to the links to studies of racial bias and the DoJ investigations presented in this thread and the BLM thread so that they do not embarrass themselves or waste time presenting inane arguments that are not borne out by the evidence.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Please stop with the straw men or find me anywhere postulating that there is no racial bias
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Who said everyone?
Intelligence should be used to evaluate risks but the notions that either only non whites are a risk, or that everyone equally is, is an utter moron.
The idea that terrorist is a non white thing is just dumb given that whites have caused more terrorism.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I don't see the word everyone in Lewkowski's post.
What are the "common profile markers of a terrorist" would be a much better retort.
If ignorance is your tea of choice for today than you must wait for lewk to dig his hole deeper.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I'm not defending Lewk I'm talking to you not him. White terrorist groups have been a major problem for decades so it would take an utter moron to think we shouldn't use our intelligence against them. Doesn't mean we shouldn't use our intelligence and should just act randomly.
Going back to earlier in the thread I want to reply to some points.
Surely that depends upon whether it works or not?
It's a good job in your world someone handling thousands of pounds of cash and stock - let alone a legal duty to mitigate risks to public safety - has no requirement for good, accurate, reliable judgement.That may be lesson no. 1 in management security training, but it's poor advice in any context that requires a person to develop good, accurate, reliable judgement--such as in law enforcement, medicine, social work, etc.
Its a risk yes, it also has the potential to make your judgement accurately calibrated. Mine is very accurate from a lot of experience. More than I would like.It causes selective perception and establishes a one-directional calibration mechanism that ultimately risks making your judgement grossly miscalibrated.
Indeed I don't disagree. But given that unlike on this side of the pond an American officer who doesn't get "on guard" when he is in grave danger is more likely to end up in the morgue himself then I don't blame him for perceiving threats. Better safe than sorry.In law enforcement, this attitude has severe consequences. When a person such as a police officer is "on guard", he perceives the world in a different way, and he perceives that which has caused him to be on guard in a different way. His wariness alters his perception of anything that may potentially be a threat, and lowers his threshold for acting on the perception of a threat. With time, the inclination to perceive threats--even where there is none--increases, accuracy decreases and the threshold for action is lowered with devastating outcomes for innocent people caught in the crosshairs of officers with systematically corrupted judgement. We see this clearly in the evidence from studies that find that police officers excessively and inappropriately target black and hispanic men, subject them to illegal or just unnecessary searches with a lower hit-rate than among white targets, subject them to greater levels of force even when inappropriate, etc. Lesson no. 1 in management security training needs to be modified if it is to be incorporated into police training.
If the perceived danger was false and the evidence was that the perceived risk was unsupported then I would think we have an issue that needs addressing. If the perceived risk is real then it is good to perceive it.
Agreed.
Which is what I did. I treated him well until after he crossed the line. Once he had crossed the line then I took action.Your instinct will typically tell you that you can expect trouble with someone who looks like someone you had trouble with before. Your good judgement will tell you to keep past experience in mind but treat the person at hand as if he's a tabula rasa. Untill such moment that he isn't an unknown quantity to you any longer.
Which should factor into your judgement. If these "scary looking" guys are very friendly then why consider them scary?For the last year and a half I've been living in a minority-majority neighborhood, with all kinds of 'scary looking' people around me most of the time. Yet I tell anybody who bothers to ask me that this must be one of the most welcoming and friendly parts of the entire city of Amsterdam. One of those places where people aren't afraid to wish you a good day even though they don't know you. Or stop to have a little chat about the weather if they actually do know you. A place where big burly black guys in the gym politely ask you if you are using a machine. Simply because that's the way we do things.
If on the other hand there was a street in Amsterdam where you had been mugged whenever you walked down it then it would not be unreasonable to be on guard next time you walk down that street - or even try to avoid walking down that street. If the mugger was consistently a white man in a pin striped suit then it may be reasonable to be on guard next time you walk down the street and see a white man in a pin-striped suit. Better safe than sorry.
No leaving a community does not entail cutting all ties to the community. Some communities cut all ties with ex-members but I don't respect or encourage that.
You listed the Jehova's Witnesses as an example. Leaving the JW will lead to the loss of contact with anyone inside the JW.
Don't complain to me if you're using shitty comparisons. Maybe, just maybe, you might consider thinking for more than five meters of gravel road when choosing comparisons.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
You asked what an ex-member of a community was. I gave an example. That is all.
Right. So, how exactly would you recognize that someone is an "ex member"?
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
I don't recall saying I would recognise someone as an ex member.
I believe I did say that ex members would be more likely to see their accents change and soften.
In order to achieve that they'd need to distance themselves from that group.
Now, why again would they need to do that in your eyes?
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
They wouldn't need to distance themselves from the group, just integrate with the rest of society. Get a house, a job, send their children to school, that sort of thing.
That's not "integration", that's called "assimilation".
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
You make it sound like assimilation is a bad thing. I'm curious - for all the Muslim immigrants you are taking, do you want them to keep their male first cultural identity where women are subservient or do you think it would be beneficial for them to assimilate and gain superior western values?
You think children going to school is assimilation?
Fine, assimilate then if that's what you want to call it. Regardless of race, religion, gender, creed, social group, sexual orientation or anything else it is the least I expect of anyone that children get educated.
No, basically you want them to become cookie cutter stereotypes of what you deem fitting.
No wonder they reject that. "Hey, give up everything you know and conform to my ideals and maybe we'll treat you like a human being!"
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
I'm waiting for Khen to talk himself into homeschooling at this point.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
You realize that there are ways to school those groups without homeschooling? But, please, carry on building this strawman so you can triumphantly burn it down.
Plus, I find it wonderous that you guys give a list of "They have to do A, B, C and D!"
And then when I say: "You're demanding with that list that they become like you and give up everything that makes them what they are!" you promptly try to turn around and then say: "What have you got against D?"
Really shitty argumentative tactic. Using that logic (and because Rand already used that particular group, so it's fair game), what have you got against Nazis? After all, they built the Autobahn!
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
LOL he'[s most of the way there
But...what if their culture prefers homeschool? You are just forcing them to assimilate! Gasp!
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Read my edit. You don't get to propose a complete list and demand that they adapt the whole list. And then cherrypick one detail from this list to paint someone being unreasonable.
By that standard, I'll demand that you allow homeschooling, become a cannibal and also sacrifice a child every sunday. And you have to fulfill all three of those demands.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Okay, so what are they allowed to keep as part of their culture and what are they allowed not in your view? Homeschooling is out so far. But again, why do you get to choose by your own standard?
I don't have to advise what I got against Nazis, I'm the one on the assimilate side, remember? You move to a new place, you need to adapt. Goosestepping giant oven builders aren't generally welcome as the basis of our society is that you don't get to do that. You can think it all you want but we aren't the thought police (yet), just don't do it.
We want people to leave the stuff they left their home for to begin with, but bring the other stuff to add to our culture, but don't expect ours to change all that much.
Last edited by Veldan Rath; 08-10-2017 at 04:45 PM.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote