SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
LaminatorX
on Wednesday February 26 2014, @11:00PM
from the studies-show-poverty-causes-cancer dept.
from the studies-show-poverty-causes-cancer dept.
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!"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Chicago Pre-Crime - Racism Cloaked in Science
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 95 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
-- Lord Acton
(Score: 5, Informative) by Angry Jesus on Thursday February 27 2014, @04:20AM
The problem with practically all of your "explanations" is a seemingly willful ignorance of the cultural context of those points.
For example, you say that disproportionate racial imprisonment rates isn't due racism if the crime rates are similarly disproportionate. But that's not the case. For example, whites and blacks use illegal drugs at roughly the same rate, but blacks go to prison for drug offenses at 10x the rate of whites. [naacp.org]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 27 2014, @05:16AM
Wrong. You've been lied to. Have a look here [fbi.gov], do a little math, and you'll see it's a little less than 3x as often as whites. Strangely, this is exactly the same across nearly every category of crime. Some do stand out though. Blacks are about 4x more likely to wind up in jail than whites for murder. Not 4x more likely than a white person accused of murder but 4x more likely than any white person period.
Are some of those statistics inflated by cops being more suspicious of black people? Of course. Gambling, weapons possession, and likely a certain percentage of most of the list. Murder rate though? You really believe that 3/4 of the murder convictions against blacks are trumped up? Or 2/3 of the rape convictions? The fact of the matter is, black culture simply produces several times its share of criminals.
Chicken or egg? Does it matter? You can't do anything about cops seeing blacks committing 2-3x their fair share of crime unless you change the culture to something that produces people less likely to commit crimes.
You may look at the above and think I hate the black man. You'd be amazingly wrong. I hate racists and their philosophy holds no place in my mind. I also hate the race-baiters because they incite race-based hatred (yes, hating whitey is racism) in their own communities. And their community pays them to do it.
I don't hate the black man. The black man is also an American man, which makes him my brother. What I hate are the sheep mentality that most people, regardless of skin color, share, the race-baiters who prey on it for personal gain at their expense, and everyone responsible for perpetuating a diseased culture.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Angry Jesus on Thursday February 27 2014, @05:27AM
Wrong. You've been lied to. Have a look here, do a little math, and you'll see it's a little less than 3x as often as whites.
That's arrest rates, not incarceration rates.
You may look at the above and think I hate the black man.
No, I don't. What I do think is you have no interest in understanding people who have a significantly different life experience than you have. So much so that you'd rather apply all your energy to rationalizing that willful ignorance instead of to thinking more deeply about the situation. Citing arrest rates rather than incarceration rates is a perfect demonstration of that.
(Score: 1) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 27 2014, @05:49AM
That's arrest rates, not incarceration rates.
Fair enough. It's passed my bedtime and I missed that.
As for the rest, I understand them quite well, thank you. They're people that have been fucked by those that should be helping them. I don't mean the cops or the government because they never help any-damn-body; I mean their community leaders and cultural icons.
Do you realize that as a people they were less defeated before the Civil Rights Act was passed than they are now? Racism didn't do that. Racism was going full blown and doing its best before the CRA and all it did was produce a man like Dr King and sweeping change. It took their own selling them on victimhood and violence to destroy them.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Angry Jesus on Thursday February 27 2014, @06:36AM
Do you realize that as a people they were less defeated before the Civil Rights Act was passed than they are now?
See? Another example of choosing to not understand. What you wrote is technically true, but utterly misleading.
The black community was doing great, making consistent improvements in nearly all measures like income and education levels until the mid 1980s, nearly 20 years of improvement after the Civil Rights Act was passed.
What happened?
The war on drugs, which as has already been demonstrated, affects blacks in vastly disproportionate numbers turning black communities into a permanent underclass where discrimination in employment, housing, even voting is now legal because of their status as convicted criminals.
But that ain't racism. That's just black culture! Those drug laws are totally color-blind. That those laws have resulted in 80% of the black male workforce in cities like Chicago having a felony record, [prisonpolicy.org] isn't structural racism. It's just a statistical anomaly that professional race-baiters like Jesse Jackson used to cash in on instead of doing the right thing for their communities.
You blame the Civil Rights Act because it so much easier than going against your internalized preconceptions. Too bad it is just utterly wrong.
(Score: -1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 27 2014, @12:36PM
You should have read your source. It said 29%, not 80%. 16% served prison time which means 1/3 of those with a felony conviction served no prison time.
As for why Chicago's corrupt asses feel the need to crack down on black men? You'd have to ask the Democrats. They've been running the place since 1927, currently under Barak Obama's ex-Chief of Staff.
Let's do a little bit of history here. From the Civil War on up to throwing Dr King in Birmingham jail, Democrats were on the wrong side of every single civil rights issue. Then JFK gets Dr King sprung from jail and suddenly the party of racist fuckwads is their new best friend? Not buying it. You don't go from hating a people for hundreds of years to helping them literally overnight and nobody to speak of changed parties over the issue. Now, you could start selling them victimhood to erode their ambition and ability to better themselves... That would get you their votes while still letting you destroy them like you've been unable to do since they went and got all uppity.
So, yes, it's just possible there is a conscious, systematic effort to destroy blacks. It's not coming from where you seem to think though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Thursday February 27 2014, @03:23PM
> You should have read your source. It said 29%, not 80%.
Is the cognitive dissonance so strong that it is preventing you from reading correctly?
"The total population of black males with a felony record (including both current and ex-felons) is equivalent to 55 percent of the black adult male population and an astonishing 80 percent of the adult black male workforce in the Chicago area." (page 4)
> Let's do a little bit of history here. From the Civil War on up to throwing Dr King in Birmingham jail, Democrats were on the wrong side of every single civil rights issue.
All you do is spout racist 'facts' -- the kind of thing you can find on websites like Stormfront. You keep quacking like a racist, I'm finding it harder and harder to believe you aren't racist.
Both parties were racist up until the civil rights act. The passage of the act was the catalyst for the loud and proud racists to leave the democrats and consolidate in the republican party. But what's really telling here is that you brought up political parties in the first place. Something that is basically a red herring but apparently very important to you.
(Score: 0, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 27 2014, @03:59PM
AJ, if you want to think me a racist, go ahead. It's the dead opposite of the truth but that hasn't stood in the way of calling anyone a racist in half a century. Usually by the type of person who uses the term "institutional racism" when they can't be bothered to find any actual racism but want to play the race card anyway.
I brought up political parties because I see one systematically destroying every minority they can get to drink their "you're being oppressed" kool-aid. I don't belong to either; they're both just different flavors of corrupt asshats.
As for the CRA... Did you miss how it was the Republican minority who pushed through the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act with JFK? Did you miss that it was a Republican President who signed them both? Did you miss how Robert Bryd and friends absolutely did not switch parties, just platforms?
I could go on and on tearing into every bill the Dems have passed to "help" since then, showing how they harmed the black community. I could do the same showing how, GWB aside, the Reps have done the opposite. But there's a problem; you would not believe it even if Barak Obama came down from heaven on a cloud with a choir of angels and swore to you it was true. You do not care about facts. You care about maintaining a victim status to feed your hate. Hate is just easier than thinking, especially when you're told who to hate by someone else.
This is pointless. We're done here.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Thursday February 27 2014, @05:07PM
As for the CRA... Did you miss how it was the Republican minority who pushed through the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act with JFK? Did you miss that it was a Republican President who signed them both?
Quack, quack, quack. [theguardian.com]
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday February 27 2014, @03:22PM
The fact of the matter is, GHETTO culture simply produces several times its share of criminals.
FTFY. Crime and poverty are linked, and a larger percentage of blacks are poor than whites. And rest assured the 1% consider you a "nigger" even if your eyes are blue. Racism is a tool of the rich to keep the poor at each others' throats.
I drink in the ghetto, I know these people, both black and white. Other than their skin, they are indistinguishable.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 1) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 27 2014, @03:38PM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by ancientt on Friday February 28 2014, @11:09PM
I know you might be sick of discussing this by now but I really do want to know if you disagree with me or just misunderstood me.
You quoted me as saying: "that disproportionate racial imprisonment rates isn't due racism if the crime rates are similarly disproportionate."
I didn't say that. I was very careful to include that racism is likely to be a factor in some situations. Did you ignore that part? Obviously you agree with it. Perhaps you weren't responding to me?
I'm often ignorant, but never willfully, and I try to correct it when I discover it. I'm pretty sure I understand the cultural context of the points, but if you think I am not, I'd be happy to learn something.
This post brought to you by Database Barbie
(Score: 1) by Angry Jesus on Friday February 28 2014, @11:24PM
I didn't say that. I was very careful to include that racism is likely to be a factor in some situations.
True, you did add that small disclaimer and I did see it, but what's the point of putting all that effort into the main point when it is so easily proven false in the first place?
It comes across as that rhetorical technique that is so common in opinion pieces, ", but I don't know for sure, I'm just saying." Maybe your intent was not to be disingenuous, but given that basically all of your points followed a similar pattern it was hard to take it any other way.
(Score: 1) by ancientt on Sunday March 02 2014, @01:09AM
You have a point. I hate it when somebody says "Maybe he's a murder" when they mean "I want to say he's a murderer but don't want to get called out on it."
I probably should have started off with a summary myself. I tend to avoid those because it makes my posts even longer.
You seem determined to defend the idea that TMB's examples are racist are against TMBs assertion that they are not. I think TMB erred by not acknowledging that they are often symptoms, but your adamant rebuttals make it sound like you see racism where it isn't necessarily present. It makes it easy to write off your opinions as zealotry. I hate to see valid points written off, and both of you had some. It is obvious that you're passionate that ignoring real racism is offensive, and I agree with you on that point.
I find that acknowledging the truth in an argument I disagree with is an effective starting point in changing minds. Simply telling you that TMB was right would have been pointless, you have no reason to consider my arguments if that's all I have to contribute. However, if I can point out that what TMB raised as examples of circumstances mislabeled as racism are accurately defined not as racism but rather as potential (some of them probable) symptoms, then I can hope that both of you will see that the other has a point worthy of discussion. Maybe nobody changes their mind, but then at least there is a chance for rational discourse.
The point I was trying to make is that each of those things:
This post brought to you by Database Barbie
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Sunday March 02 2014, @01:34AM
Is not racism in itself (accurate analysis by TMB)
That's only true by TMB's narrow definition of racism. His definition is one convenient to racists because it requires an effectively impossible amount of specificity to prove. My definition of racism, structural racism, institutional racism, whatever you want to call it, is that the "symptoms" prove its existence. What he calls a statistical anomaly, I call racism because in the end, all that matters, is the end result.
I was particularly frustrated by the guy because his denial of racism is off-topic. Clearly he's not the only one who thinks that structural racism is an impossibility, but to lose his shit (he's the one who picked the title for this sub-thread and he started in by directly insulting me in his first post) over a discussion that Big Data can and likely does enable structural racism because he thinks structural racism can not exist is not a useful contribution to the discussion.