Apologies. Confused you with another "white guy". You replied just before I corrected my post.

re: news

I'm not a white guy asshole.

Not white? Not a guy? Not an asshole? (just a bot?) Well, I'm an asshole, asshole, that's why I used scare quotes.

false positives are far less risky, and more readily correctable, than false negatives.

My intuition is that this truism, is part of the neurological behavior that makes racism so endemic and persistent. Racial biases act like positive feedback loops. A person has a bias against black people. They walk by a group of black youths. They tense up, their heart races. We're programmed to react to low frequency, high risk incidents. Particularly interpersonal conflict. We are, after all, a species the evolved under homicide rates that are far in excess of anything today. Measured homicide rates in modern hunter gatherer societies are higher than Europe if you use 1914-1918 as your measuring period. The fight or flight response is irrational, quite likely not based on any personal experience, but it's acute.

Nothing has to happen for the loop to be reinforced. The person feels stress due to bias, regardless of if the object of their fear has done anything to warrant it, and this feeds the loop. The same thing can play out in social situations.

I'm not a white guy asshole. — frank

Not a white guy, not an asshole, or neither a white guy nor an asshole?

Perhaps true of prejudice but not racism (i.e. power to enforce prejudice).

I think the positive feedback loop example also works for systemic racism. I've seen examples of how car insurance and credit scores are racist. Unable to use variables for race specifically, companies use spurious variables in their calculations as a proxy for race, which is what they really want to model.

Because certain groups are more likely to be unfairly treated in the justice system (e.g. "driving while black"), it means that individuals within those groups are going to be more likely to get tagged with variables that also correlate with risk (e.g. felony status).The US justice system is racist. Felony convictions correlate with credit worthiness because having a felony conviction makes it hard to get a job. These two factors working in confluence make some minority groups more likely to default on debt. Because the justice system is racist, all else equal, a truly color blind credit score system will be racist.

Who faces blame for a car accident depends on police reports many times. All else equal, because there is widespread racial bias, a minority driver is more likely to be blamed for an accident. This in turn makes it true that a minority driver is more costly to insure, and thus should be asked to pay more based on their risk profile (in pure, formulaic sense).

Regression analysis, by its nature, will turn into a feedback loop that perpetuates racism. Hypothetical magically non-racist AI cops would still arrest African Americans for smoking marijuana at a higher rate than European Americans, despite African Americans using the drug less, based on identical visual and olfactory sensors, because African Americans live in denser neighborhoods, which makes detecting marijuana smoke more likely.

This is essentially the same old structural racism argument that many have made better than I. I think the message also gets jumbled though. Structural racism would appear to have two components:

1. Ways systems are designed to carry out prejudice intentionally or based on subconscious bias;

2. Ways in which systems create almost mathematical feedback loops, where an oppressed group gets disadvantaged due to the system, and the measure of their disadvantage is a variable that feeds into further oppression.

A terrible example I know is that leaked Amazon documents show they seek to hit given levels of diversity because higher diversity actually makes union organizing less likely to occur or be successful. In turn, the poverty caused by machinations like these, make people more likely to hunker down into racist ideologies.

Ideological subversion, is my guess. — Tzeentch

+1

It's aRse hole.

Unless you are asinine.

It's not enough 'not to be racist (fascist)'; you're either anti-racist (anti-fascist) — 180 Proof

It's the same thing. Or not, depending on one's definition of racism, which is a term that has been misused, or over-used, in the past several years. So much so that racism has lost its meaning.

Confused you with another "white guy". — 180 Proof

I'm not a white guy asshole — frank

So typical.
As if anyone that disagrees with you is "white".
As if anyone that says, "no" to black is racist.

□

:up:

So typical — Harry Hindu

It takes a little courage to drop the propganda and think for yourself. That's true on all sides.

Don't confuse "we", the corporatist-government, with "I". The two are quite different with totally different agendas. The first is all about power, control, money. The second is who we are as individuals.

It's not enough 'not to be racist (fascist)'; you're either anti-racist (anti-fascist) or you're not.

Simply repeating that old saying is not enough, though. One has to actually do it. And to do that one must not be racist. Unfortunately one finds plenty of racism in those who repeat that saying.

I'm skeptical of such Manichean pronouncements entirely. On one side the great hosts of racism, sexism, and oppression gather. On the other, the forces of wisdom and freedom.

It isn't realistic.

How many disagreements have their been over simply the definition of "racism?"

"Black people cannot be racist. Racism, is not bigotry, but bigotry in addition to social privilege."

This definition causes near endless arguments across America. For many, racism is negative action against another for their race. For others, there is necissarily a component of large scale power imbalances.

Thus, I've heard it said, black people cannot be racist, even against other minorities, since they face the most oppression. This is true, given a definition of racist that looks through a wide lense of "privilege" and advantage at a national, or transnational level.

At the same time, I can see why this doesn't fit with personal experience. The word racist has connotations of a greater than average sin. To be racist, is to be sinful on a deep level.

For my own experience: I went to school in one of the poorest and most violent cities in the US. Hispanics were the largest demographic, followed by African Americans. Whites made up what I would guess was at least 15% of the population, although when I check now it's less than 10%, making the district's schools segregated by most datasets definitions. The city's demographics are not so segregated, but the median age of White and Hispanic populations differs by a full 23 years.

The ethnic demographic subjected to the most ostentatious bullying were Asians. This included frequent racist mocking, up to serious random beatings that sent high schoolers to the hospital, and resulted.in permanent brain injury.

Later in life I've heard the theory that Asians can be racist to African Americans, but African Americans cannot be racist to Asians Americans. The differences in privilege make equal acts unequal.

Whatever merits this argument might have, I doubt it will do anything to stem communal violence. If anything, it seems designed to be a wedge to perpetuate it.

The same question comes up in the question of Zimbabwe. Is the communal violence there racist?

Making definitions of racism correspond to broad, changeable ethnic hierarchies world wide seems to me to make for more fights over definitions, and less dialogue.

At it's worst, you end up with extremely warped ideas of history where "White" rich males have dictated all things, from time immorial, and all other peoples lack agency.

Why did Mossadegh face a coup? Because a single white man with $50,000 cash and a phone line willed it. Why did Pinochet lead his coup? Because he was told he would not be punished by US State Department employees. This is incredibly reductive reasoning that remains popular and seems racist in its own way.

Interesting. No one has taken issue with my post on the merits (re: here). That's telling I suppose ...

Not worth my time to correct you, frank, other than to agree to disagree with you. Have a good evening. — 180 Proof

You're a busy guy. Better get back to it.

Questioning that there was a riot at the Capitol? No. I'm not questing that. I'm questioning the premise that everyone at the Capitol was there to riot and that they were all white and all racists. :roll:

I seem to recall some left-wing celebrities threatening to blow up the White House and posing with a " beheaded" Trump, and riots during the summer that destroyed both private and public property and in which people lost their lives. There is vitriol from both sides. Both sides have blood on their hands.

I'm a wasp, but you're OK. I tolerate multitudes.

There’s probably a difference between poetic and comedic expression and protesting police brutality on the one side and mindless insurrection on the other.

Both sides have blood on their hands. — Harry Hindu

A disingenuous and otherwise useless platitude. Predation and defense are not the two sides of the same coin. They are different. The real question is where justice lies. Obfuscate this and you are the enemy. Or would you say that among the murderers there are fine people?

Both sides have blood on their hands. — Harry Hindu

e.g. Both Allied & German forces at Normandy on D-Day 1944 had blood on their hands.

e.g. Both ante bellum Abolitionists & Slave Owners, like post bellum militant Freedmen & Klansmen, had blood on their hands.

e.g. Both strikers and strike-breaker police at the Haymarket Riot 1889 had blood on their hands.

( ... )

Drawing false equivalences where there aren't any, Hindu, is ahistorical demogoguery as well as the (second? to) last refuge of moral cowardice. :shade:

:eyeroll:

Yes, there are two sides. Defenders/survivors, and the Satanic forces of darkness. Only by a miracle can the hosts of the isms be defeated. Rest assured, when they are, things will be totally different.


At least until the next revolution does what they always do...





Of course defeating the Nazis was just. There are, or course, gradations in justice. I find it hard to see how the current circular firing squads of the America left advance justice. They instead appear to further the cause of reactionaries, more than anything else. You're more likely to tilt at a windmill than a Nazi.

A disingenuous and otherwise useless platitude. Predation and defense are not the two sides of the same coin. They are different. The real question is where justice lies. Obfuscate this and you are the enemy. Or would you say that among the murderers there are fine people? — tim wood

There’s probably a difference between poetic and comedic expression and protesting police brutality on the one side and mindless insurrection on the other. — praxis

I agree that there is, it's just that I'm not biased to think that only one side engages in poetic and comedic expression, while the other engages in hate and oppression. Both sides have hateful oppressors and poets and comedians, but you are only capable of seeing the world through your prism of politics.

e.g. Both Allied & German forces at Normandy on D-Day 1944 had blood on their hands.

e.g. Both ante bellum Abolitionists & Slave Owners, like post bellum militant Freedmen & Klansmen, had blood on their hands.

e.g. Both strikers and strike-breaker police at the Haymarket Riot 1889 had blood on their hands.

( ... )

Drawing false equivalences where there aren't any, Hindu, is ahistorical demogoguery as well as the (second? to) last refuge of moral cowardice. :shade: — 180 Proof

I have no idea what your point is in showing these examples. I thought the Allies were priviliged racists, and you forgot to include your communist comrades in Russia who had innocent blood on their hands, too.

So yeah, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. When you've been indoctrinated to think that everyone that isn't like you in some way is out to get you in some way, then anyone that isn't like you that fights for their rights is viewed as a terrorist, as if those that aren't like you in some way can't have their liberty without ever infringing upon your liberties. Asking for liberty for all doesn't necessarily mean taking liberties from some. It just depends on what entails "liberty" for you.

There’s probably a difference between poetic and comedic expression and protesting police brutality on the one side and mindless insurrection on the other.
— praxis

I agree that there is, it's just that I'm not biased to think that only one side engages in poetic and comedic expression, while the other engages in hate and oppression. Both sides have hateful oppressors and poets and comedians, but you are only capable of seeing the world through your prism of politics. — Harry Hindu

You mentioned specific events, numbnuts, and I addressed each. Without bothering to check, if I recall correctly, "blow up the White House" was part of a poem that Madonna recited at the Woman's March. The decapitated Trump photo was a stunt by comedian Kathy Griffin. BLM are hateful oppressors???

I watched, in morbid fascination, much of the 'stop the steal' protests on YouTube. No comedy or poetry. Just a bunch of knuckleheads getting riled up by protest organizers who’s real motivation seemed to be soaking the gullible fools for donations.

Both sides have blood on their hands. — Harry Hindu

I have no idea what your point is in showing these examples. — Harry Hindu

Just exposing you again, Harry, not trying to persuade.

Drawing false equivalences where there aren't any, Hindu, is ahistorical demogoguery as well as the (second? to) last refuge of moral cowardice. :shade: — 180 Proof

Are we heading backwards? — NOS4A2

Yes.

the "6th of January" White Terrorist (re: Proud Boys, Boogaloo Bois, Oathkeepers, "stop the steal" QAnon/MAGA morons, et al) Insurrection-clown show in Washington DC — 180 Proof

:brow:

↪180 Proof
That your characterization of the event is wrong. — frank

Consider the excerpts below from an authoritative expert testimony concerning the 6th of January attack on the US Capitol.

That attack, that siege, was criminal behavior, plain and simple. It was behavior that we, the FBI, view as domestic terrorism.

The problem of domestic terrorism has been metastasizing across the country for a long time now, and it’s not going away anytime soon.

Although I don’t have the percentage for you, the attackers on January 6th included a number — and the number keeps growing as we build out our investigations — of what we would call militia, violent extremism. And we have had some already arrested who we would put in the category of racially motivated violent extremism [ ... ] Those would be the categories so far that we’re seeing as far as January 6th.

I would certainly say, as I think I’ve said consistently in the past, that racially motivated violent extremism, specifically of the sort that advocates for the superiority of the white race, is a persistent, evolving threat. It’s the biggest chunk of our racially motivated violent extremism cases for sure. And racially motivated violent extremism is the biggest chunk of our domestic terrorism portfolio, if you will, overall.

I've been sounding the alarm about domestic terrorism since, I think, just about my first month on the job when I first started appearing up on the Hill, and I've spoken about it, and in maybe a dozen different congressional hearings. So whenever we've had the chance, we've tried to emphasize this is a top concern and remains so for the FBI. — FBI Director Wray, senate testimony 3.2.21

Yes, white supremacists were there. Since the inauguration they've been trying to gather up what's left of QAnon to flesh out their ranks.

Note that the FBI did not say the event was racially motivated. They know it wasn't.