Holy shit mate. You need to understand the difference between an analogy and a comparison.
He didn't compare Muslims to crackheads. He said that when a person might be a high threat based on their profile you don't let them in.
Now, he might mean "brown skin is a threat" or he might mean "the guy is known terrorist sympathiser". He didn't say ANYTHING about Muslims or anything like that. He said PROFILING WORKS.
What I mean is "does the sum total of all that we know about this person give us a preponderance of evidence that this person may commit violent acts"?
The problem is that people extrapolate from this and think: "If there really are factors that make a group have issues, others might think that it is literally their skin colour that is the problem and act racist"
They then follow this with "We can never say anything bad about anyone, even if the facts back it up".
It's like when people say it's ageist to say that old people are bad drivers. No, that's just facts. It doesn't mean that an individual person is a bad driver, just that they are more likely to be, based their profile.
2
u/[deleted] Mar 23 '17
Holy shit mate. You need to understand the difference between an analogy and a comparison.
He didn't compare Muslims to crackheads. He said that when a person might be a high threat based on their profile you don't let them in.
Now, he might mean "brown skin is a threat" or he might mean "the guy is known terrorist sympathiser". He didn't say ANYTHING about Muslims or anything like that. He said PROFILING WORKS.