I love the above argument that different people may draw different (and largely arbitrary) lines around the demarcations between different races. But there is a bigger question of “so what?”
Let’s say you can unequivocally identify someone as being 100% prototypically Italian. Or Sudanese. Or Thai.
Now what? There are, of course, benefits to knowing a bit about someone; whether it be their cultural background, maybe give some cues as to how they would want to be treated, or perhaps how they may view themselves in regard to the rest of the world.
But race is not a suitable proxy for any of that knowledge. It is far easier to use the shortcuts that racial cues offer in wildly incorrect and inappropriate ways. As such, it is safer to develop a frame work that treats people as individuals first and foremost; race alone is not sufficient, and occasionally dangerous.
Indeed. I got a good laugh out of that. Look, you’ve had a good run but if you’re going to dodge questions by accusing me of dodging questions then you are functionally equivalent to a trolley. How come I gotta respond to your points if you’re not responding to mine?
No, but you like to think so. Remember next time you win an argument, it might not be because you’re right but because there’s no-one left who can be bothered with you.
Running in a train station? Oh, how terribly suspicious! I stopped doing it when I worked somewhere that subways came frequently enough that if you missed one you’d catch another in a few minutes, but otherwise it’s totally normal behavior. And running away while carrying a backpack is pretty strong evidence that the backpack isn’t a bomb; if she’d left it on the train and run, maybe that would be because it was a bomb, more likely that she was in a big rush and forgot, but the proper thing would still be to yell “Ma’am, you left your backpack on the train!”, not assault her.
And the government is also not allowed to discriminate against people for religious reasons, which is part of what they were doing when they thought the niqab was suspicious, but beyond that, the hijab and niqab are markers that a person is probably of a race they unofficially officially don’t trust, as well as a religion they unofficially officially don’t trust. (And in the US, most Muslims are either furriners like Arabs, Persians, Indians/Pakistanis or else they’re Black Muslims, which makes them black; any of those will do.)
Furthermore, assaulting her without probable cause is illegal, and tearing her clothes off is illegal.
It’s like porn. You know it when you see it, but some times there are things that could go either way, and some times there are disagreements between people on which way to classify something.
Don’t forget the significant population of South East Asian Muslims.
[quote]
Don’t forget the significant population of South East Asian Muslims.[/quote]
Most people do. Even though more muslims are either Indonesian or Bangladeshi than Arabian, the image people have of muslims is tied to middle eastern culture, rather than anything specific to islam. See this entire thread.
Syria was an oppressive dictatorship, but it was a secular oppressive dictatorship. So I am sure many people are relieved to be free of that ISIS shit.
If nothing else, it’d be HIGHLY problematic to draw parallels between the dress mores and grooming habits of folks who’ve just been suddenly released from an extraordinarily restrictive and brutal regime, and those who live in a (nominally) free country.
The PYD were involved in the liberation of Manbij. You might not agree with their economic beliefs, but they are one of the strongest believers in social freedoms in the region (along with their close allies, the PKK).
It’s a shame that Turkey are extremely unlikely to allow them to have their own state, even if they manage to get independence from Syria.
Can you look at a person and basically guess if they’re Kenyan, Somali, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, North Indian, South Indian, Arab, Scandinavian, etc.? The observable traits (i.e., the phenotype) from which we make these guesses on a daily basis are most definitely based in genetics (the genotype). Scientists would rather not venture in precise definitions, but take a bunch of SNPs and Chinese people cluster with Chinese people, Japanese with Japanese, etc.
The reason why race is generally bunkum is due to the fact that no matter how you slice people into phenotypic racial groups, there’s always more genetic variation within the groups than between them. Which sort of points out that the whole concept is nonsense.
Agreed - when you look at genotyping data, Chinese people cluster with each other, Japanese people cluster with each other, Africans with each other, Europeans with each other, etc. As you write, that doesn’t mean it’s important, but it’s a plain fact.
People are claiming racial profiling, racism, and all that. This seems like institutional religious intolerance to me. In the video I see agents of the government arresting someone for a public display of religious apparel. I’m fairly certain we have laws making that act illegal without having to worry about the race the victim.
~"I must warn you, If you wear that (Iron Man Helmet) into a bank, you will get thrown to the floor. "Sheldon Cooper. I see motorcyclists wearing skeleton masks. I was wondering if there isn’t an civil ordinance against “wearing a disguise in public” (except during Halloween??) in some places. There are laws against wearing masks that require you to have a note from a doctor saying it is a medical necessity or you are breaking the law. Seems like the hijab nixes these laws due to religious freedom. Perhaps you have to recite the Koran or something but there are laws about this - http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/mcs/maskcodes.html
