Angry Jesus writes:
"The Chicago Police Department is mis-applying epidemiological science (the study of entire populations) to target individuals in a real-life version of Minority Report. They have decided that it is a good idea to put people on a secret list based on a Big Data analysis of their social networks. But don't worry, it isn't racist or abusive because, Science!"
Not a troll. This was a legitimately horrible summary. TFA was fairly businesslike but the summary was race-baiting garbage.
I wrote it and I stand by it. These policies may not be deliberately racist, but their practical result is almost certain to be so. It is the very definition of stereotyping to take principles that broadly apply to a group and try to use them to define specific individuals. If you think spelling that out is race-baiting, then you've never been on the other side of such stereotyping.
--"I wrote it and I stand by it. These policies may not be deliberately racist, but their practical result is almost certain to be so."
I agree with you that the practical result of these policies is racism. However, the purposefully inflammatory tone of the summary and the article don't really serve the cause of fighting that injustice, at least not here. Write to your readers; the readers here don't want to be spoonfed your indignation, they want to read the facts and come to their own conclusions. Since you didn't allow that half the comments are about your headline and summary. Discussion about the actual content has been sidelined which probably wasn't the outcome you were hoping for.
--"It is the very definition of stereotyping to take principles that broadly apply to a group and try to use them to define specific individuals."If you had to editorialize in your summary this bit would have been much more effective than what your wrote. It defines the problem without pissing everyone off.
--" If you think spelling that out is race-baiting, then you've never been on the other side of such stereotyping."This entire statement is bullshit. You don't get anywhere by trying to marginalize everyone who disagrees with you. And I'm saying this as someone who largely agrees with what you're saying.
Back off the rhetoric and flame-baiting and you'll have much better luck here.
P.S. LaminatorX, I think, from reading the comments on this article, that its clear this kind of click-baiting is not what the community here wants. Please take that under advisement.
if you had to editorialize in your summary this bit would have been much more effective than what your wrote. It defines the problem without pissing everyone off.
In writing the summary, I assumed that the definition of stereotyping was self-evident
Based on the posts of people like "The Mighty Buzzard" it seems that the concept of institutional racism is simply not as well known as I had assumed. However, it seems that when confronted with the concept people like him are simply going to take offense no matter how simplified the description, as he wrote, If no human or mechanical mind has discriminated based on race, there is no racism. Period." [soylentnews.org]
This entire statement is bullshit. You don't get anywhere by trying to marginalize everyone who disagrees with you. And I'm saying this as someone who largely agrees with what you're saying.
Really? Do you honestly believe that someone who disagrees with the basic definition of stereotyping has not marginalized themselves out of being a productive contributor to the discussion? Should every discussion of institutional racism begin with debating its existence?
This is the equivalent to your summary:
"Race-baiting submitter proves Slashdot alternatives are run by angry teens"
Quickly after being established, summaries and headlines appearing at the curiously named, Slashdot copy-cat "Soylent News" demonstrate the juvenile nature of most of the 'protestors' of the Slashdot site. Using poorly applied internet jokes and blatantly concocted strawmen, summaries like the recent "Chicago Pre-Crime - Racism Cloaked in Science" are appearing to cater to the crowd huddling at the site. Most of the readers will likely return their homepages to 4Chan in short order.
You are complaining about the headline?
You realize your headline won't fit in the character count restriction, right? Not even close. The headline I wrote was the fourth revision to get something coherent under the limit.
"These policies may not be deliberately racist, but their practical result is almost certain to be so."
Editorials need to be labeled as editorials.
The actual article at theverge is along the lines of "here's this use of technology, and some of those who are criticizing it are calling it racist".
Your headline not only flat out declares it to be racist, but implies a deliberate attempt to disguise deliberate racism behind das blinkenlights, and the summary gets tied back to that by the snark at the end*.
If you're going to make up our minds for us, why bother posting a link to the original article? You run the risk of us getting confused by the facts.
Obviously here in the comments a lot of what people write is going to be opinion, but that's expected--it's the comments section.
*Nothing against snark, per se, it's part of why it's such a delight to experience what Charles P. Pierce can do with the language when writing online about politics for Esquire Magazine.
But there's no such thing as impartial, objective snark.
All that said, I do appreciate having the article brought to my attention, and I emailed Jeralyn Merritt of TalkLeft to bring it to hers.
Give me a fucking break. There is absolutely no requirement that submissions be neutral. I submitted the story because of my opinion about the issue. That's the way it works in a community driven site like this. You want neutral reporting? Go to Ars Technica where they pay writers and editors to do that.
People told you what they think of your submission. That's the way it works on a community-driven site like this. You don't like that? Well, start your own blog, then you can control whether criticism of what you wrote appears on that site.