According to him.
Were you there?
Maybe, but again with the reading comprehension. The first agent cleared him, yet a series of 3 more detained him. Their specific allegations were
  • non-compliance which I've been told means not cooperating with their commands
  • violating the law yet when asked what law he violated they refused to cite it in my opinion because he hadn't
  • giving them "attitude"
  • mocking them because of his disbelief that they were checking an unopened chocolate bar for explosives
  • laughing at them
  • harassing them (by laughing at them)
There is no excuse under the sun and certainly not in the anti-terrorism statutes that excuses this behavior, nor any of you thinking that this is lawful, let alone okay.
 
According to him.
Were you there?
Maybe, but again with the reading comprehension. The first agent cleared him, yet a series of 3 more detained him. Their specific allegations were
  • non-compliance which I've been told means not cooperating with their commands
  • violating the law yet when asked what law he violated they refused to cite it in my opinion because he hadn't
  • giving them "attitude"
  • mocking them because of his disbelief that they were checking an unopened chocolate bar for explosives
  • laughing at them
  • harassing them (by laughing at them)
There is no excuse under the sun and certainly not in the anti-terrorism statutes that excuses this behavior, nor any of you thinking that this is lawful, let alone okay.
I don’t have any problem with reading comprehension.
You do seem to, however.
Continually spamming the same allegations doesn’t make them true.
Do you comprehend what I’m saying now?
 
You only have his word for what happened, and since his first sentence reveals him to be suffering from TDR, it’s not necessarily entirely reliable.
What is TRD? And you believe he just fabricated this whole thing?

I don't know about Tilly ... But I don't think he "fabricated" anything (nor would it make a difference if he had).

On the other hand ... His story is nothing more than "point of view" piece written to suggest things occurred ...
As described by the plaintiff ... Polluted with a fair amount assertions that aren't necessarily supported by his own words and his descriptions of his actions.

Even in a court of law ... There is the plaintiff's truth, the defendant's truth and the basic truth.

Did the authorities have the ability to require additional screening ... Yes (truth)
Did the plaintiff first respond to the request in a manner that was less than readily compliant ... Yes (truth, also supported by his own words)
When asked, did the plaintiff choose to argue with the defendant, knowingly delaying his immediate departure ... Yes (truth)

.
 
Not trying to downplay this person’s experience, but why don’t Muslims who feel they’ve been discriminated against ever place ANY amount of blame on the radical Islamists that paves the way for discrimination against them to exist in the first place? It’s kind of like blaming the messenger bc you don’t like what they have to say.
 
These are the same people who are ripping migrant children from their parents and throwing them in latter-day concentration camps—there’s no telling what they can do to a minority this president has tried to ban from entering the country.

OMG really?

“Latter-day concentration camps”? LOL that’s what they’re calling the facilities now? Does this dude know some of the parents they “rip” these children away from aren’t their parents at all or are in more danger with their parents than they’d be without? Something tells me he doesn’t and probably wound’t care even if he did.
 
Now THIS is how to conduct an implicit bias test.

Tilly, do you still want to claim it doesn't exist?
Nowhere did I claim implicit bias doesn’t exist.
Reading comprehension problems again???

What actually happened is I demonstrated to you that THE TEST beloved and abused by Leftards and everyone determined to find RACISM (even in the subconscious) is inaccurate, is of very little use in determining behaviour or even policy preferences, and that after years of research, even its creators have admitted the same and on that basis confessed that the test has very little utility indeed.

Now, if you believe the article you posted here proves implicit bias, provide the evidence. But unfortunately you are YET AGAIN wrong.

This was not a controlled experiment, it is simply an individual recounting his perception of an encounter, and since many of us who are not muslim have experienced similar, it is evidence of absolutely nothing.
 
Last edited:
Not trying to downplay this person’s experience, but why don’t Muslims who feel they’ve been discriminated against ever place ANY amount of blame on the radical Islamists that paves the way for discrimination against them to exist in the first place? It’s kind of like blaming the messenger bc you don’t like what they have to say.
This happens all the time at European airports.
Muslim women refusing to remove head gear even when the detector has gone off. They claim racism and islaamophobia when subjected to the same checks as everyone else. It’s so tedious.
 
Why do I get the feeling you're adding just a little bit to this story? Like maybe...all of it???
Just this

"Bullies with badges on full display. Nonthing[sic] that they did or said in this instance protected the people, passengers or the interest of the United States"​

Well let’s just stop the actual Muslim radicals from doing what they’re doing and suspicion will deflate. It’s not all the white man’s fault.
 
Now THIS is how to conduct an implicit bias test.

Tilly, do you still want to claim it doesn't exist?

If you are attempting to suggest your implicit bias is reflected in how you interpreted the story the lawyer presented ...
I'd say it was a pretty good example of how implicit bias influences bigotry ... :thup:

.
 

Forum List

Back
Top