What is wrong with racial/religious profiling?
- Thread starter Patranus
- Start date
MagnusTheBrewer
IN MEMORIAM
- Jun 19, 2004
- 24,122
- 1,594
- 126
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
It would be an admission of the PC MC religion the West has practiced for 50 years is false. Any Alein looking down would not understand why we don't harass the shit out of Nutjobs who are flow in from terrorist hotbeds and with names like Mohamed Abdul Al-Sadr since there is more than a marginal higher risk off blowing shit up than any other group. The very fact that we refuse to profile even though the threat is clearly, at this time, subject to profiling, shows how infected we are.
Why is explained below:
----------
The Psychology of PC MC
Most Western PC MCs, and most Western Leftists?whether they are dastardly ?elites? or whether they are ordinary people?are not ignorant enough to explain their sociopolitical attitudes about Islam: i.e., ignorance is not a sufficient explanation for why they are PC MC and/or Leftist.
While many of them, if not a slim majority of them, may be strictly speaking ignorant of most of the damning facts about Islam, the problem enters in after the damning facts have been introduced to their attention for consideration. For, most of them do not suddenly wake up and agree with us when we present that damning information, nor do they tend to show a genuine interest in the questions which that damning information logically arouses. More often than not, PC MC people recoil and respond defensively.
If ignorance does not explain the hold of PC MC on people, what else do we adduce to make sense of this? Most analysts in the still inchoate Anti-Islam Movement who operate in the explanatory vacuum will have no other choice, if ignorance is ruled out as an explanation, but to leap to a demonization of PC MCs and/or Leftists, a demonization that in turn finds its logic only in some form of conspiracy theory?particularly with PC MC, since it is dominant and mainstream: the logic being that it could not have the widespread influence it does enjoy throughout the West absent some type of conspiratorial machination among people who are consciously pursuing goals that they know are inimical to their own West. I.e., conscious, willful treason based either on ideology or greed (or both).
Certainly, among the PC MCs and even more so the Leftists, there is a certain degree of will at play?whether the will to suppress the facts that would contradict their agenda, or beyond that, the will to actually do the harm their agenda intends. But for the vast majority of them, they are not evil people: they do not go around willfully doing unethical things (much less treasonous things) ranging from lying to countenancing evil deeds with a conscious sense of knowing what they are doing as unethical or evil. The complexity enters in here: most Leftists and PC MCs sincerely think they are doing good.
The problem here is subtler and more complex, on psychological and sociological levels, than has been typically explained, or more often merely implied, by the dominant type of asymptotic analysis current in the still inchoate Anti-Islam Movement. Contrary to the rather naively optimistic view of many in this Movement, the mere introduction of facts about Islam to the attention of a fellow Westerner is not, most of the time, sufficient to wake them up to the danger and injustice thereof. For, between the data and the mind of the PC MC person stands a complex filtration and processing system which to them has become as second nature as the air they breathe.
This complex filtration and processing system is the PC MC paradigm, which reflects the interlocking givens and axioms of a sea change in consciousness that has occurred throughout the West over the past 60-odd years (with roots going back, of course, decades, if not centuries, before that in Western civilization).
Leftists and PC MCs think and feel in the context of this paradigm: it processes incoming data and uses it as fodder for prejudicially established axioms. In order for this paradigm to work in a dominant and mainstream way in the context of modern democracies, it must be able to appeal to basic decency, intelligence and common sense to a great degree. In a tyranny, and in totalitarian societies, paradigms do not have to pass such a test: their agendas are imposed from on high and through thuggery as well as more nuanced techniques of paranoid espionage and violent intimidation. In the context of modern Western democratic societies, however, paradigms in order to become sociopolitically dominant and mainstream?as the PC MC paradigm has over the past 60-odd years?must reflect the worldview of the better angels of human nature and of the ongoing evolution of sociopolitico-cultural and ethical consciousness at that stage of its ongoing development.
The problem with the PC MC paradigm is not that it is evil: the problem is precisely that it has enough good in it?that it faithfully reflects the goodness of the ongoing progress of the West sufficiently?to appeal to the hearts and minds of a majority of Western people. With this sufficient goodness, then, there is generated the ability to insinuate harmful attitudes and policies into the mainstream.
And there is a further wrinkle of complexity here, in that the ?harm? of the PC MC paradigm is not so much sheer harm qua harm: it is the harm that results from taking a good thing too far. Most of the harm of the PC MC paradigm stems from a pathological excess of certain good values. In light of this, let us examine two key virtues that relate centrally to explaining why the West is behaving so irrationally in the face of a global revival of a hostile Islam:
1) the virtue of trying to transcend xenophobia, which is a trait of all peoples throughout all history, and thus to try to understand, and to respect (where respect is earned), the Other;
and, on the flip side of the coin,
2) the virtue of being able to question and to criticize one?s own culture.
These two virtues are essentially good: they reflect, and tend to fortify, the health of any society that cultivates their pursuit within reason. I call these two virtues the twin axiom of the PC MC paradigm, for it forms the very crux of the whole edifice.
Where the problem comes in is how these virtues are cultivated. If pursued to an excessive, irrational, and pathological degree, they tend to cease being virtues and begin to become harmful vices.
This is precisely what has happened throughout the West, with regard to these two virtues (among others that do not relate as directly to the problem of Islam). Meanwhile, in the past 25 years (paradoxically and perversely intensified post-911), Muslims have become the quintessential ?Other?, to be understood, privileged, and ?respected??mainly because of all Third World peoples, they are the only ones to persistently throw childish tantrums and to imbue the atmospherics of all our interconnected societies with an underlying threat of violent intimidation. As such, Muslims have become the principal positive subject of this double axiom, while we Westerners (and most acutely Americans and Jews) have become the principal negative subject.
Of course, this irrational configuration of Muslim-Western relations has happened because the dominant and mainstream PC MCs have let it happen. And they have done so not merely out of the first tenet of the twin axiom of the PC MC paradigm?to wit, the excessively irrational ?respect? for the Islamic Other?in logical symbiosis with the second tenet?the excessively irrational denigration of their own Western culture. In addition to this perverse dynamic, PC MC people have also let this situation develop as it has out of a growing sense of a subliminal, semi-conscious fear of Muslims. This fear of Muslims, in turn, triggers in their minds a second fear, apparently worse than the fear of Muslims: a fear of their own white Western societies becoming more and more forced to respond to the threat of Muslims, by going down that ?slippery slope? toward not only the thought crimes of ?racism? and ?Islamophobia?, but also toward the horribly unethical collective measures against all Muslims?from mass deportation, to mass internment, to ?ethnic cleansing?, and finally, the final solution: genocide.
This fear pulsates semi-consciously in their minds and throbs as a more or less incoherent tumor of illogically jumbled assumptions: For example, it tends to associate the eminently rational proposal of deportation (even if not a deportation of all Muslims but only of immigrant Muslims) with genocide. Similarly, it tends to malign the eminently rational proposal of internment?a proposal actually enacted by one of the greatest liberal Presidents of the 20th century, F.D.R., countenanced by the majority of Americans at the time, and given the official blessing of the U.S. Supreme Court then and never rescinded since then?with genocide.
Furthermore, this dark, irrational dread in the minds of PC MC people tends to abase white Western society as the one society throughout all history as most singularly predisposed to such evils. Thus, this subliminal fear exerts a constant reflex spasm on the PC MC person, and operates by a mechanism that would have been an ingenious Catch-22 had it been actually devised by someone: It is effectively triggered every time there is information about Muslims doing horrible things?whether that be successful terrorist attacks; horrific attacks that were luckily foiled by our intelligence; grotesque beheadings of innocents; murderous lynchings of innocents; ghoulishly ultra-violent tortures of innocents; mass public demonstrations seething with hatred and intolerance; opinions of alternately lurid or cleverly insidious extremism by various popular and influential clerics. Thus, by virtue of this psychological mechanism in the minds of PC MC people, information that in a normal logical healthy mind would be processed as data that damns Islamic culture and raises disturbing, pressing questions about how we can trust Muslims and what should be done to control the geopolitical disorder they are metastatically fomenting around the world, becomes, in the PC MC mind, a trigger to increase their deference, privileges, and ?respect? for Muslims!
Why is explained below:
----------
The Psychology of PC MC
Most Western PC MCs, and most Western Leftists?whether they are dastardly ?elites? or whether they are ordinary people?are not ignorant enough to explain their sociopolitical attitudes about Islam: i.e., ignorance is not a sufficient explanation for why they are PC MC and/or Leftist.
While many of them, if not a slim majority of them, may be strictly speaking ignorant of most of the damning facts about Islam, the problem enters in after the damning facts have been introduced to their attention for consideration. For, most of them do not suddenly wake up and agree with us when we present that damning information, nor do they tend to show a genuine interest in the questions which that damning information logically arouses. More often than not, PC MC people recoil and respond defensively.
If ignorance does not explain the hold of PC MC on people, what else do we adduce to make sense of this? Most analysts in the still inchoate Anti-Islam Movement who operate in the explanatory vacuum will have no other choice, if ignorance is ruled out as an explanation, but to leap to a demonization of PC MCs and/or Leftists, a demonization that in turn finds its logic only in some form of conspiracy theory?particularly with PC MC, since it is dominant and mainstream: the logic being that it could not have the widespread influence it does enjoy throughout the West absent some type of conspiratorial machination among people who are consciously pursuing goals that they know are inimical to their own West. I.e., conscious, willful treason based either on ideology or greed (or both).
Certainly, among the PC MCs and even more so the Leftists, there is a certain degree of will at play?whether the will to suppress the facts that would contradict their agenda, or beyond that, the will to actually do the harm their agenda intends. But for the vast majority of them, they are not evil people: they do not go around willfully doing unethical things (much less treasonous things) ranging from lying to countenancing evil deeds with a conscious sense of knowing what they are doing as unethical or evil. The complexity enters in here: most Leftists and PC MCs sincerely think they are doing good.
The problem here is subtler and more complex, on psychological and sociological levels, than has been typically explained, or more often merely implied, by the dominant type of asymptotic analysis current in the still inchoate Anti-Islam Movement. Contrary to the rather naively optimistic view of many in this Movement, the mere introduction of facts about Islam to the attention of a fellow Westerner is not, most of the time, sufficient to wake them up to the danger and injustice thereof. For, between the data and the mind of the PC MC person stands a complex filtration and processing system which to them has become as second nature as the air they breathe.
This complex filtration and processing system is the PC MC paradigm, which reflects the interlocking givens and axioms of a sea change in consciousness that has occurred throughout the West over the past 60-odd years (with roots going back, of course, decades, if not centuries, before that in Western civilization).
Leftists and PC MCs think and feel in the context of this paradigm: it processes incoming data and uses it as fodder for prejudicially established axioms. In order for this paradigm to work in a dominant and mainstream way in the context of modern democracies, it must be able to appeal to basic decency, intelligence and common sense to a great degree. In a tyranny, and in totalitarian societies, paradigms do not have to pass such a test: their agendas are imposed from on high and through thuggery as well as more nuanced techniques of paranoid espionage and violent intimidation. In the context of modern Western democratic societies, however, paradigms in order to become sociopolitically dominant and mainstream?as the PC MC paradigm has over the past 60-odd years?must reflect the worldview of the better angels of human nature and of the ongoing evolution of sociopolitico-cultural and ethical consciousness at that stage of its ongoing development.
The problem with the PC MC paradigm is not that it is evil: the problem is precisely that it has enough good in it?that it faithfully reflects the goodness of the ongoing progress of the West sufficiently?to appeal to the hearts and minds of a majority of Western people. With this sufficient goodness, then, there is generated the ability to insinuate harmful attitudes and policies into the mainstream.
And there is a further wrinkle of complexity here, in that the ?harm? of the PC MC paradigm is not so much sheer harm qua harm: it is the harm that results from taking a good thing too far. Most of the harm of the PC MC paradigm stems from a pathological excess of certain good values. In light of this, let us examine two key virtues that relate centrally to explaining why the West is behaving so irrationally in the face of a global revival of a hostile Islam:
1) the virtue of trying to transcend xenophobia, which is a trait of all peoples throughout all history, and thus to try to understand, and to respect (where respect is earned), the Other;
and, on the flip side of the coin,
2) the virtue of being able to question and to criticize one?s own culture.
These two virtues are essentially good: they reflect, and tend to fortify, the health of any society that cultivates their pursuit within reason. I call these two virtues the twin axiom of the PC MC paradigm, for it forms the very crux of the whole edifice.
Where the problem comes in is how these virtues are cultivated. If pursued to an excessive, irrational, and pathological degree, they tend to cease being virtues and begin to become harmful vices.
This is precisely what has happened throughout the West, with regard to these two virtues (among others that do not relate as directly to the problem of Islam). Meanwhile, in the past 25 years (paradoxically and perversely intensified post-911), Muslims have become the quintessential ?Other?, to be understood, privileged, and ?respected??mainly because of all Third World peoples, they are the only ones to persistently throw childish tantrums and to imbue the atmospherics of all our interconnected societies with an underlying threat of violent intimidation. As such, Muslims have become the principal positive subject of this double axiom, while we Westerners (and most acutely Americans and Jews) have become the principal negative subject.
Of course, this irrational configuration of Muslim-Western relations has happened because the dominant and mainstream PC MCs have let it happen. And they have done so not merely out of the first tenet of the twin axiom of the PC MC paradigm?to wit, the excessively irrational ?respect? for the Islamic Other?in logical symbiosis with the second tenet?the excessively irrational denigration of their own Western culture. In addition to this perverse dynamic, PC MC people have also let this situation develop as it has out of a growing sense of a subliminal, semi-conscious fear of Muslims. This fear of Muslims, in turn, triggers in their minds a second fear, apparently worse than the fear of Muslims: a fear of their own white Western societies becoming more and more forced to respond to the threat of Muslims, by going down that ?slippery slope? toward not only the thought crimes of ?racism? and ?Islamophobia?, but also toward the horribly unethical collective measures against all Muslims?from mass deportation, to mass internment, to ?ethnic cleansing?, and finally, the final solution: genocide.
This fear pulsates semi-consciously in their minds and throbs as a more or less incoherent tumor of illogically jumbled assumptions: For example, it tends to associate the eminently rational proposal of deportation (even if not a deportation of all Muslims but only of immigrant Muslims) with genocide. Similarly, it tends to malign the eminently rational proposal of internment?a proposal actually enacted by one of the greatest liberal Presidents of the 20th century, F.D.R., countenanced by the majority of Americans at the time, and given the official blessing of the U.S. Supreme Court then and never rescinded since then?with genocide.
Furthermore, this dark, irrational dread in the minds of PC MC people tends to abase white Western society as the one society throughout all history as most singularly predisposed to such evils. Thus, this subliminal fear exerts a constant reflex spasm on the PC MC person, and operates by a mechanism that would have been an ingenious Catch-22 had it been actually devised by someone: It is effectively triggered every time there is information about Muslims doing horrible things?whether that be successful terrorist attacks; horrific attacks that were luckily foiled by our intelligence; grotesque beheadings of innocents; murderous lynchings of innocents; ghoulishly ultra-violent tortures of innocents; mass public demonstrations seething with hatred and intolerance; opinions of alternately lurid or cleverly insidious extremism by various popular and influential clerics. Thus, by virtue of this psychological mechanism in the minds of PC MC people, information that in a normal logical healthy mind would be processed as data that damns Islamic culture and raises disturbing, pressing questions about how we can trust Muslims and what should be done to control the geopolitical disorder they are metastatically fomenting around the world, becomes, in the PC MC mind, a trigger to increase their deference, privileges, and ?respect? for Muslims!
Last edited:
Hacp
Lifer
- Jun 8, 2005
- 13,923
- 2
- 81
There is nothing wrong with religious/racial profiling. It is smart; I think some statistician proved that if we singled out people of middle eastern descent just a little more than people of other races/religions, our chances of a terrorist attack would drop significantly. However, knowing the US government, they would fuck it up. Do you really want to give unionized TSA agents all that power? They steal laptops from our suitcases for gods sake.
Last edited:
You are making an assumption that people are rationally able to stop prejudices from developing, despite the fact that they have a fundamental root in such an activity. You can systematically say all people who have XYZ physical characteristic warrant further inquiry, but there is an inherent negative correlation with the act of further inquiry and the physical difference. That negative relationship can cause the physical difference to appear to be more than just a physical difference, allowing a prejudice to develop. That prejudice can easily grow and transcend even simple familial relationships. If you want to know why developing an irrational fear about race is bad, you need to open a history book.
squirrel dog
Diamond Member
- Oct 10, 1999
- 5,564
- 48
- 91
Racial profiling is stupid, partially because of the egregious Constitutional issues of lowering the 4th amendment barrier for someone based solely on their race, but also because it's a horrible application of available security resources.
Police and security personnel should be immediately fired for implementing racial profiling not so much because of the racial parts of it, but because of the ineffectiveness. (not to mention how easy it is to get around)
Police and security personnel should be immediately fired for implementing racial profiling not so much because of the racial parts of it, but because of the ineffectiveness. (not to mention how easy it is to get around)
- Apr 15, 2007
- 9,280
- 0
- 0
eskimospy,
If you bought a FORD truck and it died two years later and then you bought a second FORD truck and it also died two years later, would you consider buying a third without taking extra precautions against making sure you didn't buy one that would die so early?
After all, not all FORD trucks die in 2 years so it would be unfair to FORD as a company to look at their product more closely.
If you bought a FORD truck and it died two years later and then you bought a second FORD truck and it also died two years later, would you consider buying a third without taking extra precautions against making sure you didn't buy one that would die so early?
After all, not all FORD trucks die in 2 years so it would be unfair to FORD as a company to look at their product more closely.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
So not buying a Ford is the equivalent of ignoring the constitutional rights of individuals based on race?
Or is it based on religion?
Or maybe on how they spell their last name?
However, the reasons for not profiling need not include a direct appeal to ethical reasoning.
Even if you concentrate all national security efforts on one group (which would be absolutely idiotic), you couldn't effectively keep track of all Muslims, or even give each a 'once over' in a reasonable period of time.
From a rights perspective, you fear false positive identification. From an efficacy perspective, it's the false negatives you worry about. This is why arbitrary imprisonment, while entirely unacceptable given current ethical standards, is the ideal strategy if you ignore ethics: no false negatives.
But prison camps would be impractical even if they were palatable; there's too many muslims, even if you only consider North America and Western Europe (which would be stupid, since these groups are self-selected to be less hostile to the West, on average). Now you need to conduct surveillance on every Muslim in the world to be safe.
You're far better off positively identifying threats than trying to deal with a focus group which is too big.
- Apr 15, 2007
- 9,280
- 0
- 0
No one is talking about deporting/interning Muslims like the Liberals savior FDR did during WWII.
No one is talking about making it illegal to be XYZ.
The question is, should the government use data about someones race/religion/national origin/background, to construct a profile of people to assist law enforcement identify those people who are most likely to commit a crime.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
If you aren't talking about that, don't bother profiling at all. You don't have the resources to follow everyone, and there are better ways to identify interesting individuals.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
You can make a case regarding Constitutionality, however considering that the vast majority of terrorist activity involves ME muslims, you are going to have a hard time showing it would be ineffective
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
It's not difficult - there's too many people.
Even if you accept that ALL terrorists are ME Muslims (a highly flawed premise), you won't get very far with this screening tactic, because very nearly all ME Muslims are not terrorists. You will not have narrowed down the focus group in any particularly useful way.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
So explain this to me. Let's say that 90 percent of terrorists are ME muslims, and they represent 10% of travelers (yes, a made up number, but I doubt that on average it's higher than that).
You have limited resources and you can either pretend that the population is homogeneous, or use a higher proportion of your agents to focus on that much smaller number.
The math suggests that the latter approach would be more effective.
If I'm wrong, show where my understanding of statistics fails.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Easy to narrow
Flown in from terrorist hot bed, check
Male between 15-40, check
Traveling alone or with other males, check
No checked bags on international fight, check
he gets xtra scrutiny/body scan
You can't do it based on religion - first of all Muslims come in all race. Second, the AQ training manual instructs terrorists to appear outwardly western in appearance. e.g. polo shirt, shaven, jeans etc. - so you have no way of ascertaining religion, not to mention how fundamental those views are held.
Flown in from terrorist hot bed, check
Male between 15-40, check
Traveling alone or with other males, check
No checked bags on international fight, check
he gets xtra scrutiny/body scan
You can't do it based on religion - first of all Muslims come in all race. Second, the AQ training manual instructs terrorists to appear outwardly western in appearance. e.g. polo shirt, shaven, jeans etc. - so you have no way of ascertaining religion, not to mention how fundamental those views are held.
Last edited:
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
It fails for a number of reasons. One is that you are spending a temendous amounts of resources on what is still a low-probability group ('All muslims'). Another is that by stretching resources this way, you are quite substantially increasing the chances of a non-muslim terrorist not being caught.
Now, if you have access to more specific group information (say membership in 'Muslim Terrorists Not-Anonymous'), with smaller membership, and higher concentrations of targets, there would of course come a point that profiling is valid.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
You can't racially profile. I can show you videos of white American and English in Islamic garb setting off IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
Exactly - none of those factors require knowing a person's race or religion.
Of course there's enough holes in that profile to drive a hijacked 747 through
From a political point of view: By definition, racial and religious profiling separate a population into people more likely to be bad guys and people less likely to be bad guys. In effect, in creates second class citizens of the people who the profile TELLS us to treat with greater suspicion. A free society can't work like that, period. Dismissing it as "political correctness" misses the point. I WISH this was just some bleeding heart lecture topic on a social studies class...but if you're going to say your society is about people being created equal, you're not going to get very far if you ignore that whenever it becomes inconvenient.
I feel that that reason alone is enough to dump religious and racial profiling in the trash where it belongs. Sadly, people seem to think all law enforcement decisions should be based on "efficiency". The problem is that this kind of profiling doesn't even pass THAT test. I can't even think of a way to profile based on religion, since that is information the TSA doesn't have and has ZERO way to collect accurately. As for race, not only do terrorists come in many different races, but concealing that is trivial, and if you're trying to pick out one race and ignoring the others, you're giving potential terrorists any easy way to achieve LESS scrutiny.
Basically racial and religious profiling sounds good to people who either want to punish all Muslims and/or Arabs, or who don't even have the foggiest understanding of the implementation issues involved, or both. It's an approach we should reject for moral reasons, and an approach we should reject for practical reasons. End of story.
I feel that that reason alone is enough to dump religious and racial profiling in the trash where it belongs. Sadly, people seem to think all law enforcement decisions should be based on "efficiency". The problem is that this kind of profiling doesn't even pass THAT test. I can't even think of a way to profile based on religion, since that is information the TSA doesn't have and has ZERO way to collect accurately. As for race, not only do terrorists come in many different races, but concealing that is trivial, and if you're trying to pick out one race and ignoring the others, you're giving potential terrorists any easy way to achieve LESS scrutiny.
Basically racial and religious profiling sounds good to people who either want to punish all Muslims and/or Arabs, or who don't even have the foggiest understanding of the implementation issues involved, or both. It's an approach we should reject for moral reasons, and an approach we should reject for practical reasons. End of story.
Your math is fine, it's your assumptions that are failing. You're assuming that the vast majority of future terrorists fit an easily testable profile that applies to very small percentage of overall travelers. I don't see a lot of support for that position, which makes the general idea a little suspect.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter