In fact I’ve been asking for them. — NOS4A2

Here's a banal and insidious variation on racial profiling. Predictive policing.

Is discrimination based on individual's birthplace, ancestry, culture, linguistic characteristics, explicitly racist (non-technical sense)?

If it was written into a law, and explicitly discriminates on these grounds, I would say it is.

That’s interesting.

If there is some part of the algorithm or data in that system that suggests police target certain racial groups, I would have to agree with you. But I cannot see those in the article. Is there something in that system that suggests certain racial groups should be policed heavier than others?

Is there something in that system that suggests certain racial groups should be policed heavier than others? — NOS4A2

If you're going to trust me on it since I've studied it: yes.

Police go to areas with high crime.
Racial profiling makes them "criminal test" people in the street more often if they're black.
Those show up in the database.
Model sees confirmed crime cases in those areas.
Police effort is reallocated to those areas.
Repeat.

Areas with high crime are nonwhite demographically to begin with. It's a positive feedback loop that reallocates police effort (edit: which in this case is also sampling effort, only sampled stuff will show in the database remember) more and more into nonwhite communities.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Does the system record and profile on the basis of race, and not some other factor?

Does the system record and profile on the basis of race, and not some other factor? — NOS4A2

It's mostly other factors. But the sampling effort is race split. So the system is discriminatory.

If I understand you correctly it records and discriminates on the basis of race. If so then yes it is racist. I would even argue that the act of considering the races of those involved as some mitigating factor, especially if it is built into the algorithm, can only breed more racism.

If I understand you correctly it records and discriminates on the basis of race — NOS4A2

It would be doing much the same thing if it didn't record the ethnicity of the people "it" samples. It has a tendency to concentrate policing effort based on race regardless of whether it records ethnicity data. So long as the people "tested" for criminality are black or poor or from neighbourhood X, it allocates police effort more to black neighbourhoods (like or near X) over time. The algorithm "figures out" black=criminal from what it's fed and how it tells police to feed it.

If it was written into a law, and explicitly discriminates on these grounds, I would say it is. — NOS4A2

And if it wasn't written into law, and business did it on their own discretion...?

The point is that that civil rights law (mentioned) was necessary to prevent implicit forms of racism such as discrimination of culture, language, country of orgin etc..

especially if it is built into the algorithm, — NOS4A2

That's the crucial thing though, a supposedly race indifferent algorithm does pick up on real correlations (poverty + nonwhite proportion in neighbourhood + crime rate). Those correlations it picks up are manifestations of systemic racism.

You find the same thing when you try making hiring work through a machine learning algorithm for assessing applicant competence, it picks up on systemic effects in the training data and enforces them through its predictions; the algorithm ends up a racist misogynist.

My unawareness was in regards to the existence of explicitly racial policies in America, which may exist beyond what I know. — NOS4A2

Ok. I can respect that. There is information that I can provide that can give you a glimpse that such exist. We can start with Stop-and-Frisk which the Supreme Court ruled as unconstitutional.

the response is going to be much different, its going to justify social control. — DingoJones

How so? Help me understand. If by social control are you referring to changing the social paradigm? I mean we can say the civil rights movement was a form of social control.

So mis-labelling the problem as systemic racism will result in unjustified social control. — DingoJones

Still not following this....

If I see Stop-and-Frisk that targets specifically people of color and if such policies only produce 2-3% of actual criminal activity and or produce illegal weapons, drugs, etc then there is a constitutional problem. Let me share a video with you to help you understand:

The Black Lives Matter founders freely admit and our proud to say that they are “trained Marxists”. — DingoJones

Evidence? Please provide an objective source! Considering the platform of BLM is quite progressive and multiethnic I find it being Marxist quite difficult to believe and incompatible.

White privilege” is a bullshit term too — DingoJones

Of course to an ignorant white person ignorant of history

Same with the way “racism” is now defined as “prejudice plus power”, a bullshit definition so people can be openly racist and not have to worry about being called a racist. — DingoJones

Now you’re sounding ridiculous. Definitions change. There is clear historical evidence that racism especially racism propagated by white supremacy is more than simply a disdain for one’s phenotype. It was systemic we can Er per reconstruction era as well as Jim Crow.

Im not a white person, — DingoJones

Ok. I’m quite familiar with people who are of color that promote white supremacist rhetoric and although I am not identifying you as one, you’re talking points are dangerously close to the rhetoric they espouse.

Ok. I’m quite familiar with people who are of color that promote white supremacist rhetoric and although I am not identifying you as one, you’re talking points are dangerously close to the rhetoric they espouse. — Anaxagoras

I find this characterisation offensive. Thats not what Im doing. Good day sir.

I find this characterisation offensive. Thats not what Im doing. Good day sir. — DingoJones

I call it how I see it.

“Systemic racism doesn’t exist” it’s a bullshit term

“Whites privilege doesn’t exist”

If all you can provide are anecdotal claims with substantive evidence to show why it’s bullshit then of course conversation is over. I mean you proclaimed that the women who confounded BLM are Marxist. BLM is incompatible with Marxism so I know what you said was bullshit and more than likely got that info from a far right website or some far right talking point

Whether I got something wrong or there is a discussion to be had is irrelevant. I have no interest in working around your entrenched prejudices, you can characterise me however you like but I dont need to waste my time engaging you.
Now to quote the great Gene Wilder:
“I SAID GOOD DAY!”

https://youtu.be/HgEUbSzOTZ8

And then ask yourself why you were so sure what I was saying was bullshit. Recognise how closed off you’ve become to anything that doesnt fit your comfy narrative. I didnt repeat right wing or white supremest talking points, I got that right from the BLM co-founder.
Now ask yourself about the other things I said, and instead of operating under the presumption im some sort of uncle tom race traitor or a white supremest based on words that trigger you try operating under the presumption that i might (might...thats a low bar) be saying something true or worth hearing.
If a white supremest says the sky is blue, and I say the sky is blue does that mean Im repeating white supremest talking points?
Its not ok to group someone in with evil people just because they say something youre not comfortable hearing, and thats what I found offensive. Your narrow perspective and limited understanding of the race issue has caused you to act like an asshole. A decent person would be apologetic.

Oi @NOS4A2, have you buggered off because you understood a worked example of systemic racism and now want to forget the fact?

It would be doing much the same thing if it didn't record the ethnicity of the people "it" samples. It has a tendency to concentrate policing effort based on race regardless of whether it records ethnicity data. So long as the people "tested" for criminality are black or poor or from neighbourhood X, it allocates police effort more to black neighbourhoods (like or near X) over time. The algorithm "figures out" black=criminal from what it's fed and how it tells police to feed it.

If it’s not so much the skin colors of those involved, but the prevalence of criminality in certain neighborhoods, then it would appear that the results are a consequence of the criminality and not the skin-colors of the individuals involved. This isn’t to say that racist police wouldn’t misinterpret and abuse the data for racist reasons, of course.

That's the crucial thing though, a supposedly race indifferent algorithm does pick up on real correlations (poverty + nonwhite proportion in neighbourhood + crime rate). Those correlations it picks up are manifestations of systemic racism.

You find the same thing when you try making hiring work through a machine learning algorithm for assessing applicant competence, it picks up on systemic effects in the training data and enforces them through its predictions; the algorithm ends up a racist misogynist.

I’m not sure how those “correlations” are manifestations of systemic racism. Poverty and crime have myriad causes, none of which is limited to this or that race.

No one can deny that there is racism and discrimination in hiring practices, but such discrimination is forbidden by law and has been for quite some time, and there are legal, systemic and institutional means with which to find justice—systemic anti-racism.

Oi @NOS4A2, have you buggered off because you understood a worked example of systemic racism and now want to forget the fact?

Nope. I remain unconvinced.

When was the last year that you would agree that systemic racism existed in the US?

When was the last year that you would agree that systemic racism existed in the US?

I don’t agree with the premise of “systemic racism” as it has been provided here. I once thought it was the same as institutional racism: the US was certainly institutionally racist for most of its history, with laws explicitly discriminating for and against races. But absent those laws and institutions it becomes difficult to indict the system for racism. It’s actually a testament to the system that we’ve come so far.

Would you be able to give a brief explanation of the last time period where you would agree that police in many areas across the US treated the races differently? Surely you at least acknowledge that this was a problem in the past yes?

And then ask yourself why you were so sure what I was saying was bullshit. — DingoJones

Because it was because you did not substantiate anything to support your opinion.

Recognise how closed off you’ve become to anything that doesnt fit your comfy narrative. — DingoJones

I'm definitely not closed off. Apparently you don't know me that well. If I believe in something I do not simply subscribe to the herd mentality. I actually research any particular movement, religion, political organization etc so with respect to BLM, I'm quite aware of their goals.

I didnt repeat right wing or white supremest talking points — DingoJones

Sure you did because these are talking points that are typically used by white supremacists and right wing talking heads for example, according to the Los Angeles Times:

"Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (who did not lose his lazy certainty) spent the weekend attacking the Black Lives Matter movement as “racist.” He wants people to focus on the fact that most black murder victims die at the hands of other blacks."

Source:https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-goldberg-dallas-conservative-black-lives-matter-20160711-snap-story.html

I highlight the above as a common talking point conservatives use to deflect from the problem concerning police brutality which has an intersectional effect on race. Or the typical talking point of someone who proclaims that "white privilege" doesn't exist because "they grew up poor." Reflecting this, as one article has put it:

"American culture conditions white folk to not fully grasp how society privileges them. They are surrounded by the pieces of the puzzle. But they have been miseducated on how to complete the image that portrays their racial group in an unflattering light."

Source:https://theundefeated.com/features/why-do-so-many-white-people-deny-the-existence-of-white-privilege/

As stated previously, all are common talking points that reflects the disingenuous, ignorant as well as right leaning ideology of confronting the problem of race, white privilege, and systemic racism. As David R. Williams professor of African-American studies put it:

“When you lack empathy for a population, you don’t feel their suffering, and you do not support policies to … address the challenges the population faces.”

In this he cites, which I wholeheartedly agree, that many Americans "underestimate racial inequities, and some among those who are aware of inequality blame minorities themselves. Citing national data from 2015, he said that 50 percent of white Americans believe that discrimination is as bad against whites as it is against people of color. In addition, while a majority of Americans seem to understand that hard work does not guarantee success, a full 50 percent of whites believe that people of color would be more successful “if they only tried harder.”

Source:https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/06/facing-the-denial-of-american-racism/

The latter, another common talking point which many whites in the conservative right tend to parrot a lot in racial discussions.

I got that right from the BLM co-founder. — DingoJones

I need you to cite a source not "I got that from the BLM founder" however, I found what you claimed according to the New York Post:

"Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors said in a newly surfaced video from 2015 that she and her fellow organizers are “trained Marxists” – making clear their movement’s ideological foundation, according to a report."

Source:https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-co-founder-describes-herself-as-trained-marxist/

However, according to the post, she also expresses appreciation for the work of the US Communist Party, Black Panther Party, the American Indian Movement, Young Lords, Brown Berets, and the great revolutionary rainbow experiments of the 1970's. But I'm not sure how the co-founders belief waters down the efforts of Black Lives Matter movement. I believe clearly she was describing not only her political ideology but her ability of being trained in grassroots organization.

Now ask yourself about the other things I said, and instead of operating under the presumption im some sort of uncle tom race traitor or a white supremest based on words that trigger you try operating under the presumption that i might (might...thats a low bar) be saying something true or worth hearing. — DingoJones

If you say so.

If a white supremest says the sky is blue, and I say the sky is blue does that mean Im repeating white supremest talking points? — DingoJones

Well, if a white supremacist says "All blacks have low IQ" and you follow through with some sort of research to validate that claim then pretty much you're attempting to validate a white supremacist talking point. Or, if a white supremacist says "Stop-And-Frisk is justified because blacks have an affinity for criminal behavior" then you follow through with crime statistics of criminal activity in urban communities, you are by virtue of that action trying to justify a white supremacist talking point. That is not me saying you're racist but you are dangerously close to being labeled one if you try and justify white supremacist beliefs.

Its not ok to group someone in with evil people just because they say something youre not comfortable hearing, and thats what I found offensive. — DingoJones

I don't know you which is why I stopped short of proclaiming the racist label. I politely remind you that I'm quite familiar with common opinions in regards to the current subject matter. In many discussions especially among those who have racist beliefs they say something similar. Now, if you do truly believe the way you do it would be best to substantiate future claims with some sort of source. But if all we are doing is just using anecdotes then it boils down to opinion however those opinions could be internal biases.

I'm all up for agree to disagree discussions, but for far too long I've been in debates with many people who hold internal biases against blacks and other communities of color. I've also been in discussion with people of color most recently an Indian from India who tried to justify racism against blacks because as I've mentioned before, they like to use crime statistics as if we naturally have an affinity for criminal activity all-the-while ignoring the colorism and caste system that is oppressive in his own community. Again, this goes all the way back to people using common racist talking points to justify their opinion.

Lastly, I apologize if I've offended you. You must forgive me that I tend to get on defense mode when discussing this subject matter. I've become used to having to defend my position as a black man because since the age of 13 (I'm 38 now) I've had to encounter online racism. I've encounter online racism and anti-black rhetoric than I have encountered intellectual/philosophical discussions which is quite sad.

My apologies for this long post for the sake of preventing misunderstanding I hope you read it all.

I need you to cite a source not "I got that from the BLM founder" however, I found what you claimed according to the New York Post: — Anaxagoras

I linked a video of her saying it.

My apologies for this long post for the sake of preventing misunderstanding I hope you read it all. — Anaxagoras

I did read it all. I appreciate that the subject comes with a lot of trigger words and weaponised language but alot of what you clarified wasnt addressing points I actually made. Because of the format (text) communication is difficult on this subject (Or any really) so its usually better to operate under a principal of charity.
Obviously we disagree fundamentally and despite your protests I still think you are closed off to anything that contradicts your comfy narrative. You’ve been trained to see racism where there is none, though I understand you can just as easily say the same to me. (In reverse).

You’ve been trained to see racism where there is none — DingoJones

Ok....

Would you be able to give a brief explanation of the last time period where you would agree that police in many areas across the US treated the races differently? Surely you at least acknowledge that this was a problem in the past yes?

I would not be able to because I don’t know the answer to that question.

But absent those laws and institutions it becomes difficult to indict the system for racism. — NOS4A2

Let's start with an easy example. After WWII, black soldiers were systematically denied education & housing benefits, even tho the law itself was ostensibly neutral. The ability to purchase a house and/or get a college degree gave white soldiers significant financial & social advantages that they passed onto their children.

Most people would consider this to be an example of systemic racism. Do you agree or disagree?

Here is one of numerous articles you can find with a quick web search: https://www.history.com/news/gi-bill-black-wwii-veterans-benefits

1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s? You have no idea when police brutality against black-skinned Americans was last an unquestionable reality?

He doesn't want to answer because he realises any answer will trap him in an inconsistent position.