Bigotry or profiling?


Recommended Posts

Bigotry or profiling?

Once again the Israeli issue has come up with its attack against Hamas and, once again, I am a bit irritated at myself for allowing myself to say that I applaud Israel for taking specific action against a specific evil. (I actually do applaud Israel, but I am hanging on by a thin strand. I have totally lost the pleasure and pride of saying that. Maybe next time I will just stay silent. And I know I am not the only one who feels this way.)

When you make an opinion supporting Israel against something evil like Hamas, it seems it is not nearly enough. People want to push you—and they push hard—into wholesale bigotry.

I just can't go there. This literally makes me heartsick.

The day Objectivism means nothing more on this earth than a rationalization for bigotry is the day I lose all interest in Objectivists and cry a tear for Rand.

Yet I am sure my impression is not as bad in reality as it gets conveyed to me at the time of discussion. OL is full of good people who I admire. I am also aware that if I perceive something clearly, even if I feel I am not seeing the whole picture, I am convinced there is something real there. Something not good. And that bothers me terribly.

So here is a question to mull over that hopefully will help define this matter better and illuminate misunderstandings and double standards where they exist.

There is a thin line between profiling and bigotry. What is that line and when does it get crossed?

By profiling I mean identifying essential attributes of a group in light of a specific aim, and by bigotry I mean lumping people together through common but nonessential attributes, assigning all of them the attributes of some—especially evil attributes, and hating them all indiscriminately.

An example of profiling is identifying Muslims who preach violence against non-Muslims (or at least believe this is the good) and act on it, with the aim being to stop them from carrying out their plans, thus preserve individual rights. An example of bigotry is identifying Muslims as those who read and follow the Qur'an, claiming they are all terrorists—either in act or at heart—irrespective of what they do, and hating them all indiscriminately.

After giving a nod to the issue of reason versus faith, I have tried to establish the line between profiling and bigotry as violators of non-coercion and individual rights (profiling) versus collective hatred (bigotry). But this argument almost always falls flat in the vituperation against Islam. Then issues bounce all over the place as emotions heat up.

But I am truly curious as to what people think. I ask because I don't have all the answers about what is in people's minds and hearts. When does profiling become bigotry? And when does bigotry stop being bigotry and become profiling?

What are the essentials of this issue if not non-coercion, individual rights and collective hatred?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

You are not on the receiving end of this.

btw - Any thoughts on the line between profiling and bigotry?

Michael

Both are forms of making judgments prior to a fact. The difference is the intent. Profiling is a preemptive defensive policy used to thwart terrorists and insurgents. Bigotry is used by power elites to retain their dominant position in society. There are similarities but they exist for different reasons.

The ultimate profiling story is -Majority Report- starring Tom Cruise.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

You seem to be doing what you are complaining about. I'm not talking about racism. I'm talking about your way of referencing "Objectivists." What Objectivists where? ARI? SOLOP? OL? Who is pushing you? Bob Kolker? He's not even an Objectivist. He has been making some unexpectedly very good posts lately. I'm not accusing you of bigotry but of sloppy writing. You left out too much specific information. Lose all interest in Objectivists? Barbara Branden? Me? David Kelley? I could cut closer to the bone, but I'm not an SOB. And I can't even begin to get my head around what you wrote about Israel. You're short about 500-1000 words there. You put too much into a small pot and you failed to cook it properly.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

Forget my irritation with the "Islamic evil is worse than Western evil" approach that is the basis for so many posts on Objectivist forums when discussing Islamism, and is a quasi-explicit policy of ARI. Do you really not see this and do I really need to cite post by post where people overgeneralize about Islam in derogatory terms? That's a chip on your shoulder that doesn't need to be there. It also sounds like ARI asking, "Where is your evidence?" when someone complains of its practice of excommunicating people.

The issue of profiling versus bigotry is a critically important one and this other defensive stuff is taking center stage. Leave that to ARI, which has, for a really good example, given to Objectivism a public reputation somewhere in the ballpark of The John Birch Society.

If I didn't think there was a chance for this to get better, I wouldn't bring it up. And if I didn't think a philosophic system devoted to reason deserved better thinking, I wouldn't be so bitter about it when I see it.

Instead of looking down, let's look up. Take a peek at two very good recent posts: here and the one by me following it, for an example of where discussion—instead of anti-Islamic bombast—leads. That is what I am talking about as proper reason-based focus.

I don't know if that will hold in that discussion, but it is a glimmer of hope.

And I agree with you the Bob Kolker has had a spate of good posts recently. That's something else I hope will hold.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, it seems that you are treating religion as if it were a racial characteristic. Indeed, you refered to "race" in another thread on this topic. But religion is a matter of choice, and I doubt you want to deny that certain people have free will.

Since religion is a matter of free will, we expect people to be able to justify their choice. Catholics, for example, will volunteer, without prompting, "I am a catholic. But of course I disagree with the church on divorce and birth control." You would think you would hear people say, "I am a m^slim, but I don't approve of sharia or jihad, and I think Bin ladin is a monster, and find the actions of hamas and hizbullah shameful." How nice that would be. I don't think anyone here cares which direction someone prays or what he doesn't eat.

And as a minor matter, I thought profiling was a type of bigoted policing based on appearance rather than probable cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

You seem to be doing what you are complaining about. I'm not talking about racism. I'm talking about your way of referencing "Objectivists." What Objectivists where? ARI? SOLOP? OL? Who is pushing you? Bob Kolker? He's not even an Objectivist. He has been making some unexpectedly very good posts lately. I'm not accusing you of bigotry but of sloppy writing. You left out too much specific information. Lose all interest in Objectivists? Barbara Branden? Me? David Kelley? I could cut closer to the bone, but I'm not an SOB. And I can't even begin to get my head around what you wrote about Israel. You're short about 500-1000 words there. You put too much into a small pot and you failed to cook it properly.

--Brant

Michael, I am in agreement with Brant. If you object to people tarring all Muslims with the same brush you cannot simultaneously write as if all Objectivists are identical, which you very often do. Most of us here who call ourselves Objectivists or neo-Objectivists would say, as I do, that I am not an ARI Objectivist or a TAS Objectivist or any other archetype of Objectivist. I am Barbara, who is in agreement with much of Objectivism and in disagreement with aspects of it. I don't like being thrown into a common pool.

I also find it difficult to understand your point about profiling versus bigotry. Only one or two people here have ever said or implied that all Muslims are evil because they are Muslims -- although not everyone always expresses himself with perfect exactitude. That being so, you should address your objections to those one or two people individually, not to all of us who defend Israel, as I do. We do not need endless lectures on bigotry and tolerance.

Further, I would expect you to extend the same good will that you demand of others, So that if someone makes a statement that might on the face of it appear bigoted, you would ask what they mean, not assume the worst and proceed with a scolding. By your constant criticisms, you are making it unpleasant for people to continue discussing a vastly important issue that they clearly want to discuss.

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet I am sure my impression is not as bad in reality as it gets conveyed to me at the time of discussion. OL is full of good people who I admire. I am also aware that if I perceive something clearly, even if I feel I am not seeing the whole picture, I am convinced there is something real there. Something not good. And that bothers me terribly.
If you object to people tarring all Muslims with the same brush you cannot simultaneously write as if all Objectivists are identical, which you very often do.

Barbara,

I find it difficult to reconcile these two statements. I do not recognize my writing in your words.

The impression I get is that my observations are being brushed aside and my writing is misconstrued. You mention you feel this way on a group basis ("Objectivists"). I feel this way on a one-on-one basis.

On the issue of profiling versus bigotry, what is it that I wrote that you do not understand? You merely mentioned you find it difficult to understand my point. That is too general for me to do a good job of explaining, since I would run the risk of merely repeating what I already wrote, which to me is clear.

Do you have any thoughts on this issue?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James,

If you want to understand Islam in general terms, I would not start with the Qur'an. I suggest The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Islam by Yahiya Emerick. Seriously. It gives you a good overview of the myths, structure and philosophy from the point of view of a popular Islamic scholar.

I have only read about half of it. I stopped because I literally got bored with Islam. :)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, I don't want to go over hundreds of past posts to find examples, but surely you know that you've made statements to the effect -- when you were discussing your possible partner in your web business, for instance -- that you dld not trust Objectivists. That's the sort of thing I'm referring to.

And when you add a statement such as:

"Yet I am sure my impression is not as bad in reality as it gets conveyed to me at the time of discussion. OL is full of good people who I admire. I am also aware that if I perceive something clearly, even if I feel I am not seeing the whole picture, I am convinced there is something real there. Something not good. And that bothers me terribly."

-- it doesn't help at all.

What are your readers to make of such a statement? That most of us are good people but you know something bad is going on? Are we simply to take your word for an unspecified criticism? -- and then do what?

I must say that if you feel misunderstood, I feel the same way. I am not a bigot, I do not want to nuke the Muslim world-- but I'm damned if I'll pretend sympathy for the "moderate" Muslims who do not speak up against their leaders who would happily nuke the non-Muslim world.

All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. And when they do nothing, it is my view that they can no longer expect to be considered good men. In today's world, no one has the luxury of refusing to stand up and be counted. Civilization is at stake.

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

I still disagree with you on the Islam question, but I will look deeper. I have not yet read the Qu'ran. Maybe that's the next step.

Jim

I have read it in translation. My Arabic is not good enough to fully grasp the subtleties in its native language. I have read several translations, some of them by Muslims and all of them make my flesh crawl.

In truth there are Biblical passages which I find equally horrifying (and I might add, embarrassing). However the Jewish people moderated their religion and the Talmud is the central Book of Orthodox Judaism, not the Talmud. Rabinnic Law or Halachah has superceded Divine Law. Under Rabinnic Law it would be impossible to convict a pair of males for having homosexual relations in private because two independent witnesses could not be produced. And even if they could, no bet din (Rabinnic Court) would impose the death penalty by stoning as prescribed in the Bible. I think it was Rabbi Nachman who said any Bet Din that imposed a death sentence once in seventy years is excessively bloody.

No such moderation exists in al Islam. There is no Islamic Talmud that supercedes the Q'ran. Had such a modification been made a thousand years ago or even five hundred years ago, we would not be having all these threads concerning Islam. Both Judaism and Christianity have largely detoxified themselves. Christianity has reconciled to a secular order dominated by science and technology. Jews long ago figured how to live among the Gentiles in peace. The basic principle is - dinot malachuta din-. The law of the domain is the law. Jews are required to be law abiding by rabbinical law.

Apparently Muslims in Europe and in some other places have not reached this conclusion. Just recall what happened in France and Denmark. Young Muslim males ran amok in Denmark after the publication of the cartoons mocking Mohamed (pus and blisters upon him). A contract for murder (a fatwa) was taken out against Salman Rushdie for publishing Satanic Verses. This fatwa was blessed by Muslim clergy. Vincent Van Gogh's great grand-nephew Theo was murdered by a Muslim man for his views on Islam, not because of any overt acts.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must say that if you feel misunderstood, I feel the same way. I am not a bigot, I do not want to nuke the Muslim world-- but I'm damned if I'll pretend sympathy for the "moderate" Muslims who do not speak up against their leaders who would happily nuke the non-Muslim world.

All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. And when they do nothing, it is my view that they can no longer expect to be considered good men. In today's world, no one has the luxury of refusing to stand up and be counted. Civilization is at stake.

You ask that the moderate muslims would "speak up against their leaders who would happily nuke the non-Muslim world" but what can we do when our governments decide to invade other countries for no good reason a la Bush and company? We can "speak up" until we are blue in the face but what good does it do? Over there you could get executed for speaking up so I think putting the onus on the people who are oppressed is somewhat misguided. I have never voted in my life because I believe when I vote I am sanctioning the system of insanity I find myself immersed in. I suppose I could go and spoil my ballot but I'm not sure what effect that would have. If everyone stopped voting altogether I wonder what the effect would be? What if men stopped joining the armies, then we couldn't invade other countries. I think at some point all sane people in the world are going to have to go "on strike" in order to derail out of control governments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are your readers to make of such a statement? That most of us are good people but you know something bad is going on? Are we simply to take your word for an unspecified criticism? -- and then do what?

Barbara,

I believe what I am sensing is epistemological. With only a very few exceptions, I do not believe that OL readers are bigots. (Interestingly, I don't even believe Bob Kolker is a bigot at heart, despite his outspokenness on this at times.) But I do believe that people in group tend to issue opinions of things they know little about because others do so.

Both you and I have lived through an online experience of widespread acceptance and admiration, then because a prominent person decided to distort our words and start demonizing us, watch as people who mouthed praise one day simply flip a mental switch and start mouthing condemnation. One person after another.

This is my main objection. I believe many comments I read about Muslims and/or Islam come from this mental habit of following what someone else says without critical thinking and I believe we can all do better.

There are only 4 ways I can think of to learn about someone:

1. Direct observation.

2. Listen to what he says about himself.

3. Listen to what others say about him.

4. Observe the traces of his past acts.

Then there is a fifth way that grows by itself. We analyze something, maybe using bits of information from all four, come to a conclusion or supposition based on what we deem reasonable, and over time this conclusion starts taking on an inner mental form as if it were an observed fact. Then no matter what else new we see or hear, that conclusion takes immediate precedence, often obliterating the very perception of the new fact.

That's a mental habit I try to keep in check within myself, although it is difficult at times. There is so much information to process in the modern world that we all have to rely on mental shortcuts just to get by and not get bogged down into paralysis.

I believe this has direct bearing on the profiling and bigotry issue I raised. And I believe this is an important issue—a critical one.

... I do not want to nuke the Muslim world-- but I'm damned if I'll pretend sympathy for the "moderate" Muslims who do not speak up against their leaders who would happily nuke the non-Muslim world.

All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. And when they do nothing, it is my view that they can no longer expect to be considered good men. In today's world, no one has the luxury of refusing to stand up and be counted. Civilization is at stake.

I can sympathize with the essence of this. But what do you want to do about the problem this poses? Just say you don't consider moderate Muslims good people? I don't see that solving anything or even advancing any improvement.

Use force against them as a solution? How? There are over a billion in God knows how many countries.

We must learn how to communicate with these people if we are to persuade them to stand up against the fanatics in their religion. It is more than evident that, for whatever reason, they will not do so in their present state of mind. I happen to believe that the issue is far more complicated than saying they are not good people. And the benefit of my way of thinking is that within the complication lies diverse solutions for communicating and persuading.

Another thing working in favor of this kind of approach is the Information Revolution. The modern world is not a closed society like, say, Germany was when Nazism came to power. It is very difficult for fundamentalists to keep their people from accessing information that challenges them and contradicts them. That is a major crack in their power.

Why not make use of that crack to reach those in doubt and those of a more independent nature? Wholesale condemnation cuts off access to it because Muslims will then listen to anyone but the person doing the wholesale condemning. That's just human nature. I know I would do the same if I were born and raised in that environment.

Actually, there is intellectual outreach happening, like what I mentioned elsewhere with the Rand Corporation study on fostering and funding moderate Muslim networks. And that's just one case. I see enormous opportunities to influence history through intellectual efforts springing up all over.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing working in favor of this kind of approach is the Information Revolution. The modern world is not a closed society like, say, Germany was when Nazism came to power. It is very difficult for fundamentalists to keep their people from accessing information that challenges them and contradicts them. That is a major crack in their power.

This is very true, IMO. In this day and almost nothing goes on without someone finding out about it - hell even taking pictures with their cell phones and putting it on the net in a matter of seconds!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are your readers to make of such a statement? That most of us are good people but you know something bad is going on? Are we simply to take your word for an unspecified criticism? -- and then do what?

Barbara,

I believe what I am sensing is epistemological. With only a very few exceptions, I do not believe that OL readers are bigots. (Interestingly, I don't even believe Bob Kolker is a bigot at heart, despite his outspokenness on this at times.) But I do believe that people in group tend to issue opinions of things they know little about because others do so.

Both you and I have lived through an online experience of widespread acceptance and admiration, then because a prominent person decided to distort our words and start demonizing us, watch as people who mouthed praise one day simply flip a mental switch and start mouthing condemnation. One person after another.

This is my main objection. I believe many comments I read about Muslims and/or Islam come from this mental habit of following what someone else says without critical thinking and I believe we can all do better.

There are only 4 ways I can think of to learn about someone:

1. Direct observation.

2. Listen to what he says about himself.

3. Listen to what others say about him.

4. Observe the traces of his past acts.

Then there is a fifth way that grows by itself. We analyze something, maybe using bits of information from all four, come to a conclusion or supposition based on what we deem reasonable, and over time this conclusion starts taking on an inner mental form as if it were an observed fact. Then no matter what else new we see or hear, that conclusion takes immediate precedence, often obliterating the very perception of the new fact.

That's a mental habit I try to keep in check within myself, although it is difficult at times. There is so much information to process in the modern world that we all have to rely on mental shortcuts just to get by and not get bogged down into paralysis.

I believe this has direct bearing on the profiling and bigotry issue I raised. And I believe this is an important issue—a critical one.

... I do not want to nuke the Muslim world-- but I'm damned if I'll pretend sympathy for the "moderate" Muslims who do not speak up against their leaders who would happily nuke the non-Muslim world.

All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. And when they do nothing, it is my view that they can no longer expect to be considered good men. In today's world, no one has the luxury of refusing to stand up and be counted. Civilization is at stake.

I can sympathize with the essence of this. But what do you want to do about the problem this poses? Just say you don't consider moderate Muslims good people? I don't see that solving anything or even advancing any improvement.

Use force against them as a solution? How? There are over a billion in God knows how many countries.

We must learn how to communicate with these people if we are to persuade them to stand up against the fanatics in their religion. It is more than evident that, for whatever reason, they will not do so in their present state of mind. I happen to believe that the issue is far more complicated than saying they are not good people. And the benefit of my way of thinking is that within the complication lies diverse solutions for communicating and persuading.

Another thing working in favor of this kind of approach is the Information Revolution. The modern world is not a closed society like, say, Germany was when Nazism came to power. It is very difficult for fundamentalists to keep their people from accessing information that challenges them and contradicts them. That is a major crack in their power.

Why not make use of that crack to reach those in doubt and those of a more independent nature? Wholesale condemnation cuts off access to it because Muslims will then listen to anyone but the person doing the wholesale condemning. That's just human nature. I know I would do the same if I were born and raised in that environment.

Actually, there is intellectual outreach happening, like what I mentioned elsewhere with the Rand Corporation study on fostering and funding moderate Muslim networks. And that's just one case. I see enormous opportunities to influence history through intellectual efforts springing up all over.

Radical jihdists should be cut off from their sources of money, moderate Muslim religious leaders bribed and subsidized to eschew force and violence.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Radical jihdists should be cut off from their sources of money, moderate Muslim religious leaders bribed and subsidized to eschew force and violence.

--Brant

I think you may be onto something. Bribing and subsidizing is a lot cheaper than war and slaughter on a grand scale. But will it work?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wrote: " I do not want to nuke the Muslim world-- but I'm damned if I'll pretend sympathy for the "moderate" Muslims who do not speak up against their leaders who would happily nuke the non-Muslim world.

"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. And when they do nothing, it is my view that they can no longer expect to be considered good men. In today's world, no one has the luxury of refusing to stand up and be counted. Civilization is at stake."

Michael responded: "I can sympathize with the essence of this. But what do you want to do about the problem this poses? Just say you don't consider moderate Muslims good people? I don't see that solving anything or even advancing any improvement.

"Use force against them as a solution? How? There are over a billion in God knows how many countries.

"We must learn how to communicate with these people if we are to persuade them to stand up against the fanatics in their religion. It is more than evident that, for whatever reason, they will not do so in their present state of mind. I happen to believe that the issue is far more complicated than saying they are not good people. And the benefit of my way of thinking is that within the complication lies diverse solutions for communicating and persuading."

Michael, I don't understand why you continue in this vein. I have not suggested using force; I have stated clearly and often that I would not do so. Nor have I suggested that the solution to moderate-Muslim silence is to say I don't consider them good people. Who is it you are addressing by your comments? Do you expect me to defend positions I do not hold? I am really discouraged about the point of my continuing this discussion.

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, I don't understand why you continue in this vein.

Barbara,

Because I want to do something about it.

I don't consider pointing the finger at a billion people and saying they are no good because they keep their peace very productive.

Do you have any practical suggestions—ones that have a chance of succeeding—for eliminating the problem of Islamist terrorism and driving a wedge between the terrorists and moderate Muslims?

I do.

And I am very interested in hearing any practical suggestions you may have.

That is my interest right now. (And I believe it should be for mankind at the present.)

All that other stuff detracts from focusing on this.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now