The story about the black lady and old white lady at Buckingham Palace made me think.
Racism is different treatment for different ethnic/racial groups.
People should be treated as people, regardless of skin color. If you treat black people one way and white people another you're racist and you're wrong.
That's why I said I didn't see the evidence of the white lady's racism.
We need at least two data points to determine if someone treats groups differently. We don't know if the white lady would have treated a white person differently in the same situation.
I don't feel any white guilt.
I'm not responsible for slavery, or Jim Crow, or lynchings. I didn't do those things. In my mind when I first meet a black person we both come in with clean slates. If they start off telling me I'm responsible for this things we will not agree. MLK said he had a dream of a world in which people were judged on the content of their character, not on the color of their skin. That's a great dream, and it should go both ways. Judge me for me, not for my yellowish-white skin.
Not all accusations of racism are true.
Both in real life and on the internet I've seen countless examples of people claiming to be the victim of racism when to my way of seeing things it has nothing whatsoever to do with racism. If you get arrested for shoplifting or handcuffed and pulled off an airplane for being drunk and stupid, that has nothing to do with race. It has to do with your actions and their repercussions.
Political Correctness disagrees with the preceding statement.
There are people, well-intentioned people, who either believe that any accusation of racism by a member of a protected class is true, or stay silent and change the subject when faced with a false accusation of racism, out of "solidarity" or sympathy. If these people were willing to call bullshit once in a while false accusations of racism might diminish.
Real harm is caused by false accusations of racism.
People can be cancelled, rendered persona non grata. Expelled from polite society. It's not fair to do this to non-racist people. They are people too.
Individuals are not inferior but cultures and societies can be.
I dislike the way mainland Chinese jump lines and act noisy and vulgar when visiting foreign countries. I dislike the way hillbilles roll coal and beat their wives and drink too much and smoke too much meth and get in bar fights and vote for Trump. This doesn't mean that every single member of these groups acts in this way but there are negative tendencies that I find disfunctional which are perpetuated because their in groups find these behaviors acceptable or commendable. Similarly with black urban/ghetto/hip hop culture. "Keeping it real" can mean making babies and bailing, fighting, committing crime. Littering for Hod's sake. I want people to stop keeping it real.
Racial profiling is iffy.
I sympathize with members of high crime groups who don't commit crimes and object to disproportionate attention being focused on them. Black shoppers being followed by store security is a prime example. I would probably be offended if it were me. The flip side is that focusing enforcement on high crime groups is the most efficient use of resources. Most bang for the buck. It's intuitively silly to randomize the people who are pulled out of the airport line for further screening. This issue is not going to disappear. The rebirth of stop and frisk and the introduction of AI into crime prevention means that profiling will get more precise but will always involve false positives.
That's all for now.
One possible thing you may be ignoring in the Buckingham Palace case (and what may contribute to your tone-deafness on it) is the lack of cultural context.
It may be normal in the US for strangers to be this inquisitive and insistent on learning personal stuff the other person is very obviously uncomfortable to divulge, but in the UK you just don't do that. If you do, especially in that style, you are already rude and condescending. And from the context of her questions it was trivially easy to deduct the source of that condescension (ie that in her mind the black lady was a third world immigrant on account of her skin colour)
Nobody is asking you to feel white guilt because of a rich cunt, but the lack of collective gullt does not excuse individual cases of racism.
What's the backstory?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2022, 03:25:05 AMThe story about the black lady and old white lady at Buckingham Palace made me think.
Racism is different treatment for different ethnic/racial groups.
Mostly yes.
There are exceptions where this isn't the case of course - medical conditions that afflict different ethnicities more or less, hair dressers etc...
QuoteThat's why I said I didn't see the evidence of the white lady's racism.
We need at least two data points to determine if someone treats groups differently. We don't know if the white lady would have treated a white person differently in the same situation.
Surely we have a bunch of data points here with this woman meeting tonnes of white people and being a insulting cow not coming up as a problem?
Also a bit iffy here as its placing a huge burden of proof before one can call a spade a spade.
QuoteI don't feel any white guilt.
I'm not responsible for slavery, or Jim Crow, or lynchings. I didn't do those things. In my mind when I first meet a black person we both come in with clean slates. If they start off telling me I'm responsible for this things we will not agree. MLK said he had a dream of a world in which people were judged on the content of their character, not on the color of their skin. That's a great dream, and it should go both ways. Judge me for me, not for my yellowish-white skin.
1: I thought you were of Korean descent? You're mixed race?
2: white guilt is not a phrase I hear much at all.
More usually the problem phrase is white privelege. As someone who not too long ago didn't understand this myself but was able to grasp it, it's painful to see how completely misunderstood it is and how obtuse some people are when it comes to trying to figure it out.
3: yes. Ideal world in the future it won't matter what race someone is at all. Picking on someone for being black will be a bizzare thing to do that just won't factor into most people's thinking.
But it does need pointing out its often racists who push this pov with their own slant. Moaning about how blm is somehow the one causing division and how great they and the UK in general actually are on race.
It's all well and good to say just ignore a problem and it doesn't exist when one sits in the priveleged position but when you have black people all yelling at us "no. Its an actual problem." best not blancsplain.
QuoteNot all accusations of racism are true.
Yes. I've definitely been on the receiving end of this in reality.
Online too one often finds racists pre emptiviely throwing it around at others.
QuotePolitical Correctness disagrees with the preceding statement.
Theres examples of people who think anything in the world.
I don't think people who believe racism is always true are particularly large in number.
In this case of the royal connected lady you have a respected professional in the sphere making the accusation and no denials the transcript was wrong.
QuoteReal harm is caused by false accusations of racism.
Ish. Sometimes. But again not a huge issue. Sure, if someone thinks you've said something racist and stabs you that's a bit issue. But it isn't a everyday thing.
QuoteIndividuals are not inferior but cultures and societies can be.
Complex. What is a culture?
I'd argue those hillbillies are just examples of American culture at its worst. What happens if you apply it to certain shitty conditions and propeganda.
I'd say cultures aren't better and worse each other but they can certainly be at different levels of development. Any culture can reach a stage of being chill with diversity but it isn't a straight path and outside factors play a huge role in this.
QuoteRacial profiling is iffy.
I get why security guards follow black people sure. Its their job to fight crime in the here and now. Not to think of the big picture.
Do this however... And this kind of shit in itself serves as a big factor that leads to the factors that makes black people more likely to commit a crime.
It's all very complex interconnected stuff.
Garbons gonna be madddddd :P
Quote from: Josquius on December 26, 2022, 07:21:32 AMAlso a bit iffy here as its placing a huge burden of proof before one can call a spade a spade.
Jos, not the best choice of idiom given the thread topic, though I know it's not of a racist origin.
Quote from: HVC on December 26, 2022, 07:27:58 AMGarbons gonna be madddddd :P
Why? There's no need for me to do more than a cursory read of such a post.
Quote from: mongers on December 26, 2022, 09:12:39 AMQuote from: Josquius on December 26, 2022, 07:21:32 AMAlso a bit iffy here as its placing a huge burden of proof before one can call a spade a spade.
Jos, not the best choice of idiom given the thread topic, though I know it's not of a racist origin.
.
Youve lost me here.
Quote from: Josquius on December 26, 2022, 09:47:41 AMQuote from: mongers on December 26, 2022, 09:12:39 AMQuote from: Josquius on December 26, 2022, 07:21:32 AMAlso a bit iffy here as its placing a huge burden of proof before one can call a spade a spade.
Jos, not the best choice of idiom given the thread topic, though I know it's not of a racist origin.
.
Youve lost me here.
Spade is now a racist term of abuse, since probably before WW2.
Don't know if it's British or American term.
I don't know that I've ever heard anyone but the oldest of old geezers use 'spade' as a racial slur here in the US Deep South.
Keep fighting the power, Jos.
Honestly I have no idea who it is racist against.
Since you say deep south I assume black people?
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/09/19/224183763/is-it-racist-to-call-a-spade-a-spade
Yi, your grand unified theory of racism doesn't seem to address structural racism.
Quote from: Jacob on December 26, 2022, 12:57:50 PMYi, your grand unified theory of racism doesn't seem to address structural racism.
Probably because I don't really know what it means. Please educate me.
Quote from: Josquius on December 26, 2022, 12:15:43 PMHonestly I have no idea who it is racist against.
Since you say deep south I assume black people?
Spade is a common insult against black people in England. Amazed you've not heard it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2022, 03:25:11 PMQuote from: Jacob on December 26, 2022, 12:57:50 PMYi, your grand unified theory of racism doesn't seem to address structural racism.
Probably because I don't really know what it means. Please educate me.
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=structural+racism
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2022, 03:25:05 AMThe story about the black lady and old white lady at Buckingham Palace made me think.
Racism is different treatment for different ethnic/racial groups.
People should be treated as people, regardless of skin color. If you treat black people one way and white people another you're racist and you're wrong.
That's why I said I didn't see the evidence of the white lady's racism.
We need at least two data points to determine if someone treats groups differently. We don't know if the white lady would have treated a white person differently in the same situation.
I don't feel any white guilt.
I'm not responsible for slavery, or Jim Crow, or lynchings. I didn't do those things. In my mind when I first meet a black person we both come in with clean slates. If they start off telling me I'm responsible for this things we will not agree. MLK said he had a dream of a world in which people were judged on the content of their character, not on the color of their skin. That's a great dream, and it should go both ways. Judge me for me, not for my yellowish-white skin.
Not all accusations of racism are true.
Both in real life and on the internet I've seen countless examples of people claiming to be the victim of racism when to my way of seeing things it has nothing whatsoever to do with racism. If you get arrested for shoplifting or handcuffed and pulled off an airplane for being drunk and stupid, that has nothing to do with race. It has to do with your actions and their repercussions.
Political Correctness disagrees with the preceding statement.
There are people, well-intentioned people, who either believe that any accusation of racism by a member of a protected class is true, or stay silent and change the subject when faced with a false accusation of racism, out of "solidarity" or sympathy. If these people were willing to call bullshit once in a while false accusations of racism might diminish.
Real harm is caused by false accusations of racism.
People can be cancelled, rendered persona non grata. Expelled from polite society. It's not fair to do this to non-racist people. They are people too.
Individuals are not inferior but cultures and societies can be.
I dislike the way mainland Chinese jump lines and act noisy and vulgar when visiting foreign countries. I dislike the way hillbilles roll coal and beat their wives and drink too much and smoke too much meth and get in bar fights and vote for Trump. This doesn't mean that every single member of these groups acts in this way but there are negative tendencies that I find disfunctional which are perpetuated because their in groups find these behaviors acceptable or commendable. Similarly with black urban/ghetto/hip hop culture. "Keeping it real" can mean making babies and bailing, fighting, committing crime. Littering for Hod's sake. I want people to stop keeping it real.
Racial profiling is iffy.
I sympathize with members of high crime groups who don't commit crimes and object to disproportionate attention being focused on them. Black shoppers being followed by store security is a prime example. I would probably be offended if it were me. The flip side is that focusing enforcement on high crime groups is the most efficient use of resources. Most bang for the buck. It's intuitively silly to randomize the people who are pulled out of the airport line for further screening. This issue is not going to disappear. The rebirth of stop and frisk and the introduction of AI into crime prevention means that profiling will get more precise but will always involve false positives.
That's all for now.
I agree with some of your points. I disagree about racial profiling being an efficient use of resources. It is not. Race, as in skin color, isn't a valid indicator or willingness to commit crime in itself. You need different data than that. A white man raised in a high crime predominently black neighbourhood could very well belong to a criminal gang run by black men. And your racial profiling totally exclude white collar crimes. And you don't account for mix-race either. Sorry, not a valid use or human resources. Nor a valid data point to enter into AI learning algorythm.
There are much more important factors, like drug use, prior criminal arrests for similar crimes, known affiliations, which weapons (if any) the person posess, online activities, threats being made, complaintes received, etc, etc,
Also, the royal affair may have involved a good dose of snobbery on top of racism. Meghan being a simple american commoner divorcee never helped her cause.
When it comes to hot button issues such as racial profiling, I don't think it's possible to know whether it works or not. Can you imagine being a researcher doing a study on whether racial profiling works, and having the same willingness to publish a study with an affirmative conclusion as you would be publishing a negative conclusion?
I think you're going to need a really huge asbestos suit, to cover the really huge steel balls of yours, to weather what's going to come your way. Unfortunately, the effect of such an environment is that none of the studies on this topic can be considered scientific, because they're not conducted with the unbiased mindset.
Does it even matter if it works? If it works it's largely because of historical racism, I think.
In Hungary I think this is very clear with the gypsies. Centuries spent shun into the underclass with still heavy racism, I am very certain racial profiling on gypsies would be efficient. But how is it a solution? Create massive barriers from having them enter society and then conclude that since they cannot enter they deserve to be shunned out? How is that helping anyone on the long run? But I think it does create this terrible feedback loop where as an indivudal you ARE correct to assess that you need to be more distrustful of gypsies since odds are they are from the very fringes of society. But this behaviour of course means all of them are pushed to those fringes irrespective of their merits.
It's a tough nut to crack.
Quote from: Tamas on December 31, 2022, 05:17:02 AMDoes it even matter if it works? If it works it's largely because of historical racism, I think.
In Hungary I think this is very clear with the gypsies. Centuries spent shun into the underclass with still heavy racism, I am very certain racial profiling on gypsies would be efficient. But how is it a solution? Create massive barriers from having them enter society and then conclude that since they cannot enter they deserve to be shunned out? How is that helping anyone on the long run? But I think it does create this terrible feedback loop where as an indivudal you ARE correct to assess that you need to be more distrustful of gypsies since odds are they are from the very fringes of society. But this behaviour of course means all of them are pushed to those fringes irrespective of their merits.
It's a tough nut to crack.
I think a useful strategy for the law abiding member of a stigmatized group is to signal one's difference from the group. Things like the way you dress, the way you talk, etc. can signal to the world that while you are from the same place as the others your behavior is different. Pulling up your pants for example. Sagging is based on glorification of prison culture. I wouldn't want to hire someone who sagged and if I managed a retail store that's the person I would keep an eye on, until I had evidence to the contrary, either anecdotally from my own experience or more formally.
I worked a temp job one time in DC with a girl with an Irish accent. I made some comment about gypsies or being gypped and she corrected me with "traveler" (which at the time I didn't know was a thing). I never asked her about it, but I like to think she was an Irish traveler who immigrated to the US in order to escape the stigma. That's a strategy.
Which doesn't work if your group follows you. Like the Russian mob moving into Brooklyn.
Which is not to say this makes the moral ambiguity disappear.
Quote from: Tamas on December 31, 2022, 05:17:02 AMDoes it even matter if it works? If it works it's largely because of historical racism, I think.
In Hungary I think this is very clear with the gypsies. Centuries spent shun into the underclass with still heavy racism, I am very certain racial profiling on gypsies would be efficient. But how is it a solution? Create massive barriers from having them enter society and then conclude that since they cannot enter they deserve to be shunned out? How is that helping anyone on the long run? But I think it does create this terrible feedback loop where as an indivudal you ARE correct to assess that you need to be more distrustful of gypsies since odds are they are from the very fringes of society. But this behaviour of course means all of them are pushed to those fringes irrespective of their merits.
It's a tough nut to crack.
It matters a great deal if it works. For one, it will help identify the real problem. Is the problem that people are making erroneous connections between race and some outcomes? Or is the problem that these connections are real, but self-reinforcing because people are acting on them? These are two completely different problems.
The problem with decreeing that the problem is the first one is twofold. The first problem is that you're now making it a question of statistics. If you can statistically prove that it's in fact not erroneous to profile, then you're in the clear? The second problem is that if this decree runs counter to people's experiences, then you're solving nothing at all, and are just making people justifiably more cynical about any public pronouncements on this topic.
Well yeah. Race isn't the factor that truly makes the difference.
Oversimplfiying but if someone from the shit neighbourhood is say 5% likely to be a criminal irrespective of race vs 0.5% from elsewhere in town, its still worth noting that half of the black people in your city live in that neighbourhood so there's a bigger chance a random black person will be one of these crooks.
Consider the profiling also usually looks at men of a certain age who dress a certain way and the odds of getting a crook is boosted.
The problem is of course though in doing this you have a better chance of spotting a crook then with a complete roll of the dice you're also bothering a lot of innocent people who fall afoul of your checklist. People who get this from everyone, not just you.
I would say the problem is in poor incentivisation of the security guard doing the profiling - he has had it put to him that increased odds of stopping one theft is worth bothering 50 innocent black guys.
The incentive should be swayed away from this so not intimidating customers whilst at the same time providing a level of security is what we get.
Further complicating on this is where race can become a factor. Being treat like shit your whole life being a big factor in being more likely to turn to crime, some criminal gangs seeking to recruit based on race, etc...
Quote from: Josquius on December 31, 2022, 02:10:48 PMI would say the problem is in poor incentivisation of the security guard doing the profiling - he has had it put to him that increased odds of stopping one theft is worth bothering 50 innocent black guys.
The incentive should be swayed away from this so not intimidating customers whilst at the same time providing a level of security is what we get.
That's dumping the load on some poor underpaid schlub. The fairer way to do it for the suits at corporate to fine tune their algorithm then train the schlubs.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 31, 2022, 09:30:25 AMI think a useful strategy for the law abiding member of a stigmatized group is to signal one's difference from the group. Things like the way you dress, the way you talk, etc. can signal to the world that while you are from the same place as the others your behavior is different. Pulling up your pants for example. Sagging is based on glorification of prison culture. I wouldn't want to hire someone who sagged and if I managed a retail store that's the person I would keep an eye on, until I had evidence to the contrary, either anecdotally from my own experience or more formally.
So your advice to the stigmatized group is to change their behaviour?
You imply that their behaviour is the reason for the stigmatization?
Dude I like you but you sometimes sound like you're from the 1950s. Wtf.
And what advice can you give to racists? Because your advice mainly seems to be aimed at the victims here, basically telling the girl to pull down her miniskirt.
Quote from: Zoupa on December 31, 2022, 05:13:20 PMSo your advice to the stigmatized group is to change their behaviour?
You imply that their behaviour is the reason for the stigmatization?
Dude I like you but you sometimes sound like you're from the 1950s. Wtf.
And what advice can you give to racists? Because your advice mainly seems to be aimed at the victims here, basically telling the girl to pull down her miniskirt.
Yes.
I state the bad actors in the group are the reason for the stigmatization.
I've already stated my advice to racists: treat everyone the same.
My advice to the other victims here (the store owners) is to refine their algorithms so you have fewer false positives.
Cool. I'll start wearing a tuxedo everywhere that I go.
Your "treat everyone the same" advice to racists negates the need for the victims to change their behaviour.
I suggest we as a society, work on changing the perpetrators instead of the stigmatized.
This is kind of something that happens.
Look to Burberry in the early 2000s for instance. It built up huge charva associations and heavy criminal links through this.
Bans on burberry popped up in places and the brand really dropped out of fashion with decent people.
The trouble is... So we are letting criminals dictate what we can and can't wear?
If there's a spate of crimes by guys in white shirts then we all have to stop wearing white shirts?
And I don't think it's so easy as having better algorithms. So much of this stuff is deep seated unconscious bias. I don't think security people are specifically told to target young black guys. It's just something that has been culturally installed in them.
Unconscious bias training and all that sort of thing can help of course. But as well as directly tackling the problem I do think a lot of success can be had by seeming to ignore it and instead adjusting what we encourage and discourage in such a way that it reduces the desire to profile as a handy mental shortcut.
Quote from: Zoupa on December 31, 2022, 05:32:10 PMYour "treat everyone the same" advice to racists negates the need for the victims to change their behaviour.
I suggest we as a society, work on changing the perpetrators instead of the stigmatized.
I don't understand the question.
Why not both?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 31, 2022, 09:30:25 AMI think a useful strategy for the law abiding member of a stigmatized group is to signal one's difference from the group. Things like the way you dress, the way you talk, etc. can signal to the world that while you are from the same place as the others your behavior is different. Pulling up your pants for example. Sagging is based on glorification of prison culture. I wouldn't want to hire someone who sagged and if I managed a retail store that's the person I would keep an eye on, until I had evidence to the contrary, either anecdotally from my own experience or more formally.
If cops pull you over because you are a black man driving a luxury car, how do you change that? Don't get rich? Don't maximize your abilities?
Look, I don't mind arbitrary police stops like that, especially if they have reason to be suspicious (a planned hit near a gang/mafia member, a
legitimate description of a suspect that looks like the guy they check "tall black man in mid 20s", they suspect the person just got out of the bar while they are under a no alcohol restriction, etc), but racial profiling in itself serves no purposes but to enrage honest people*. And criminals just don't care.
*And white people get pissed when they are harassed y their government, I can tell you that firsthand. Thankfully, I never had problem with the police itself.
Quote from: garbon on December 31, 2022, 05:29:36 PMCool. I'll start wearing a tuxedo everywhere that I go.
If every black man starts wearing a tuxedo, we'll be suspicious of people wearing tux though :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 31, 2022, 05:20:45 PMYes.
I state the bad actors in the group are the reason for the stigmatization.
I've already stated my advice to racists: treat everyone the same.
My advice to the other victims here (the store owners) is to refine their algorithms so you have fewer false positives.
While I have a profound dislike for gangsta rap and the associated behavior that comes with it, I don't think it's a mere question of clothing.
Quote from: viper37 on December 31, 2022, 06:19:03 PMIf cops pull you over because you are a black man driving a luxury car, how do you change that? Don't get rich? Don't maximize your abilities?
Look, I don't mind arbitrary police stops like that, especially if they have reason to be suspicious (a planned hit near a gang/mafia member, a legitimate description of a suspect that looks like the guy they check "tall black man in mid 20s", they suspect the person just got out of the bar while they are under a no alcohol restriction, etc), but racial profiling in itself serves no purposes but to enrage honest people. And criminals just don't care.
I didn't claim the signaling strategy would eliminate 100% of false positives.
But racial profiling--which is a loaded term, I prefer risk factor profiling--does serve a purpose. It ostensibly lowers crime.
Quote from: viper37 on December 31, 2022, 06:30:13 PMWhile I have a profound dislike for gangsta rap and the associated behavior that comes with it, I don't think it's a mere question of clothing.
I don't understand your point.
Quote from: Josephus on December 26, 2022, 06:38:26 AMWhat's the backstory?
Sorry Jo Jo, didn't catch this first time around.
Black-UK woman runs a charity, gets invited to Buckingham. 82 year old lady in waiting type chats her up, asks where she's from. UK. No, where are you from? Hereford(?). No, where are you really from?
Then a roil and a ruction soon began.
edit: link is about 10 pages up in the Brexit thread.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 31, 2022, 06:56:19 PMQuote from: viper37 on December 31, 2022, 06:30:13 PMWhile I have a profound dislike for gangsta rap and the associated behavior that comes with it, I don't think it's a mere question of clothing.
I don't understand your point.
Gangsta rap and the associated culture treating women like dirt repulse me. Like they're all whores who care only about drugs and cash.
But it ain't a question of dress code. Lots of people are into that shit, even if they ain't black, and they dress in all kind of ways.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 31, 2022, 06:38:24 PMQuote from: viper37 on December 31, 2022, 06:19:03 PMIf cops pull you over because you are a black man driving a luxury car, how do you change that? Don't get rich? Don't maximize your abilities?
Look, I don't mind arbitrary police stops like that, especially if they have reason to be suspicious (a planned hit near a gang/mafia member, a legitimate description of a suspect that looks like the guy they check "tall black man in mid 20s", they suspect the person just got out of the bar while they are under a no alcohol restriction, etc), but racial profiling in itself serves no purposes but to enrage honest people. And criminals just don't care.
I didn't claim the signaling strategy would eliminate 100% of false positives.
But racial profiling--which is a loaded term, I prefer risk factor profiling--does serve a purpose. It ostensibly lowers crime.
If risk factor profiling is based on skin color, it is inherently flawed. It's a false variable to begin with. And it leads to false stats because then you arrest more people based on their skin color so you feed the system false data.
It's like saying most Asians are smart and most Blacks are stupid based on university admission rates. It's a flawed metric. And then, if you were to base your university admission criteria on this, you would increase the flawed model by using flawed date to begin with.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 31, 2022, 09:31:28 PMQuote from: Josephus on December 26, 2022, 06:38:26 AMWhat's the backstory?
Black-UK woman runs a charity, gets invited to Buckingham. 82 year old lady in waiting type chats her up, asks where she's from. UK. No, where are you from? Hereford(?). No, where are you really from?
And your theory (first post) is that you can't conclude old lady in waiting is racist because of the possibility that she asks all people "where are you really from" multiple times?
That seems to me an extremely low probability possibility.
Quote from: Zoupa on December 31, 2022, 05:13:20 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on December 31, 2022, 09:30:25 AMI think a useful strategy for the law abiding member of a stigmatized group is to signal one's difference from the group. Things like the way you dress, the way you talk, etc. can signal to the world that while you are from the same place as the others your behavior is different. Pulling up your pants for example. Sagging is based on glorification of prison culture. I wouldn't want to hire someone who sagged and if I managed a retail store that's the person I would keep an eye on, until I had evidence to the contrary, either anecdotally from my own experience or more formally.
So your advice to the stigmatized group is to change their behaviour?
You imply that their behaviour is the reason for the stigmatization?
Dude I like you but you sometimes sound like you're from the 1950s. Wtf.
And what advice can you give to racists? Because your advice mainly seems to be aimed at the victims here, basically telling the girl to pull down her miniskirt.
So I saw this thread and thought about the same rape analogy.
Look, when it comes to rape, the moral fault is 100% with the rapist.
When it comes to the real world though there are definitely steps women can take to decrease their odds of being raped. Not so much 'wear longer skirts', but more like don't get drunk in unfamiliar surroundings where someone can take advantage of you.
It's the same reason why you shouldn't wave around large sums of cash in a bad neighbourhood. If you get mugged the moral blameworthiness is 100% on the mugger - but that doesn't mean the victim wasn't displaying some risky behaviour.
So what does that mean for POCs or otherwise marginalized groups? I'm not sure. I get that this is easy for me to say as a middle-aged white male - I get all the breaks. On the one hand Yi's advice makes sense - dress up to try and decrease your odds of facing discrimination. On the other hand though does that feed into all kinds of stereotypes that people with low-hanging pants are criminals? Perhaps.
IMO there are steps individuals can take to manage risks in an injust world. It is often sensible to take those steps on an individual and case-by-case basis. At the same time, those risk mitigation steps often carry a cost one way or the other.
At the same time, it is IMO incumbent upon decent folks to try to make our world less injust or, at the very least, to not actively perpetuate and promote injustice.
Again IMO, very often "well meaning" advice on how to mitigate risk is used as a substitute for actual action against injust situations, as an excuse for not taking action, or even as a tactic to shift responsibility for the injustice of the world unto its various victims for failing to meet some conveniently arbitrary standard of "sensible" risk mitigation.
Quote from: viper37 on January 01, 2023, 03:21:19 AMIf risk factor profiling is based on skin color, it is inherently flawed. It's a false variable to begin with. And it leads to false stats because then you arrest more people based on their skin color so you feed the system false data.
It's like saying most Asians are smart and most Blacks are stupid based on university admission rates. It's a flawed metric. And then, if you were to base your university admission criteria on this, you would increase the flawed model by using flawed date to begin with.
I see your point about the feedback loop, but I don't see any evidence for the assertion that race in a vacuum is not a predictive variable.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 03, 2023, 09:05:42 AMAnd your theory (first post) is that you can't conclude old lady in waiting is racist because of the possibility that she asks all people "where are you really from" multiple times?
That seems to me an extremely low probability possibility.
No, because the possibility that she treats all people the same. There's a reasonable possibility that she asks the same question to white people with accents and/or non-UK surnames. There's also a reasonable possibility that she considers asking a person who's ancestors obviously immigrated to the UK at some point where their family origin is a rude, condescending question, and therefore in her mind she treated the black lady with the same civility she shows everyone else.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 03, 2023, 07:41:31 PMNo, because the possibility that she treats all people the same. There's a reasonable possibility that she asks the same question to white people with accents and/or non-UK surnames. There's also a reasonable possibility that she considers asking a person who's ancestors obviously immigrated to the UK at some point where their family origin is a rude, condescending question, and therefore in her mind she treated the black lady with the same civility she shows everyone else.
But black charity lady doesn't have an accent, I assume.
The repetition and the "where are you *really* from" seems to eliminate the possibility of nuance here. I don't think she asks that question of Nigel Farage.
Yeah.
I don't personally think there's a big problem with "where are you from?" Asking it 9 times on the other hand.
Of course, Nigel Farage just doesn't get invited to the palace :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 03, 2023, 11:51:53 PMYeah.
I don't personally think there's a big problem with "where are you from?" Asking it 9 times on the other hand.
Though I certainly have found myself in a situation where a black guy freaked out for just being asked it once :ph34r:
I wonder whether it's a more sensitive question in other countries.
Britain is a place where you expect to find diversity. When you run into a Chinese Norwegian though... Then damn it I'm curious. Which likely annoys the Chinese Norwegian as he is getting it all the time.
Quote from: Josquius on January 04, 2023, 04:23:31 AMQuote from: Sheilbh on January 03, 2023, 11:51:53 PMYeah.
I don't personally think there's a big problem with "where are you from?" Asking it 9 times on the other hand.
Though I certainly have found myself in a situation where a black guy freaked out for just being asked it once :ph34r:
I wonder whether it's a more sensitive question in other countries.
Britain is a place where you expect to find diversity. When you run into a Chinese Norwegian though... Then damn it I'm curious. Which likely annoys the Chinese Norwegian as he is getting it all the time.
Part of maturing from a child to adult is self control. We don't have to engage in every whim.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 03, 2023, 11:51:53 PMOf course, Nigel Farage just doesn't get invited to the palace :P
I imagine not, but he does have the suspiciously non-John Bullish last name.
Quote from: Jacob on January 03, 2023, 02:57:26 PMIMO there are steps individuals can take to manage risks in an injust world. It is often sensible to take those steps on an individual and case-by-case basis. At the same time, those risk mitigation steps often carry a cost one way or the other.
At the same time, it is IMO incumbent upon decent folks to try to make our world less injust or, at the very least, to not actively perpetuate and promote injustice.
Again IMO, very often "well meaning" advice on how to mitigate risk is used as a substitute for actual action against injust situations, as an excuse for not taking action, or even as a tactic to shift responsibility for the injustice of the world unto its various victims for failing to meet some conveniently arbitrary standard of "sensible" risk mitigation.
Don't members of minority groups already take steps to mitigate risk?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_talk_(racism_in_the_United_States)
Quote from: garbon on January 04, 2023, 11:29:50 AMDon't members of minority groups already take steps to mitigate risk?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_talk_(racism_in_the_United_States)
Yup. But - and I believe you agree with this - there's more to countering racism than "members of minority groups should take steps to mitigate racism; if bad things happens it's their fault for being insufficiently cautious in their risk mitigation strategies."
I think it's dangerous to focus completely on minority groups. Historically racism against the majority has been a huge problem, and I don't think we're out the woods yet.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 03, 2023, 07:36:15 PMQuote from: viper37 on January 01, 2023, 03:21:19 AMIf risk factor profiling is based on skin color, it is inherently flawed. It's a false variable to begin with. And it leads to false stats because then you arrest more people based on their skin color so you feed the system false data.
It's like saying most Asians are smart and most Blacks are stupid based on university admission rates. It's a flawed metric. And then, if you were to base your university admission criteria on this, you would increase the flawed model by using flawed date to begin with.
I see your point about the feedback loop, but I don't see any evidence for the assertion that race in a vacuum is not a predictive variable.
I do not see any evidence for the assertion that race in a vaccum is a predictive variable of any crime.
Quote from: The Brain on January 04, 2023, 11:34:39 AMI think it's dangerous to focus completely on minority groups. Historically racism against the majority has been a huge problem, and I don't think we're out the woods yet.
Do you have any examples you can share?
Quote from: Jacob on January 04, 2023, 02:28:25 PMQuote from: The Brain on January 04, 2023, 11:34:39 AMI think it's dangerous to focus completely on minority groups. Historically racism against the majority has been a huge problem, and I don't think we're out the woods yet.
Do you have any examples you can share?
Apartheid South Africa, Qing China, many parts of the world in the colonial era.
Yi, since we were talking about racial profiling, here's an interesting case.
Terrebonne police, city slammed with $205K lawsuit for systemic discrimination (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/black-while-driving-monsanto-terrebonne-police-1.6703471)
1) How is he dressed like a gangster?
2) How do cops determine his clothing make him suspicious while he's driving his car?
3) How is it a justified use of human resources to stop people like him twice a day?
4) Given the likelyhood that at some point the victims of racial profiling will fight back in court when they are innocent, how can we justify the cost of legal expenses incurred?
I'm not saying it has no use at all when they stop real, known, criminals for a random check. But arresting ordinary citizens and fining them is a step beyond decency I'm not willing to take.
The police operate in a different legal framework than store security. The police by law need probable cause to arrest and something like reasonable suspicion to detain and question.
AFAIK store security don't have the same legal burden to watch one customer more closely than others.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2023, 07:54:49 PMThe police operate in a different legal framework than store security. The police by law need probable cause to arrest and something like reasonable suspicion to detain and question.
AFAIK store security don't have the same legal burden to watch one customer more closely than others.
But we were having a dicussion on a grand unified theory of racism. It goes beying store security.
Quote from: viper37 on January 05, 2023, 11:30:26 PMBut we were having a dicussion on a grand unified theory of racism. It goes beying store security.
That's where I've been willing to take it. If you want to push the envelope bring up up a different case.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2023, 07:54:49 PMThe police operate in a different legal framework than store security. The police by law need probable cause to arrest and something like reasonable suspicion to detain and question.
AFAIK store security don't have the same legal burden to watch one customer more closely than others.
Police need grounds to detain someone, but can question any damn person they like, with or without any reason in the world. You don't like it you're free to walk away - but of course many don't realize that.
They can also surveil any damn person they like.
Quote from: Barrister on January 06, 2023, 12:54:20 PMPolice need grounds to detain someone, but can question any damn person they like, with or without any reason in the world. You don't like it you're free to walk away - but of course many don't realize that.
... and, of course, in jurisdictions where police have the ability - legally or illegally - to severely inconvenience people on arbitrary grounds, you are not free to walk away in practice.
Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2023, 02:29:32 PMQuote from: Barrister on January 06, 2023, 12:54:20 PMPolice need grounds to detain someone, but can question any damn person they like, with or without any reason in the world. You don't like it you're free to walk away - but of course many don't realize that.
... and, of course, in jurisdictions where police have the ability - legally or illegally - to severely inconvenience people on arbitrary grounds, you are not free to walk away in practice.
Russian police let your fly away.
I gave it a lot of thought and came up with my own Grand Unified Theory of Racism:
1:
(https://i.imgur.com/7WK8BXv.jpg)
2:
(https://i.imgur.com/aXZ1Sup.jpg)
Raz I'm afraid you may have left a single minor type in your formula :(
Quote from: Barrister on January 06, 2023, 12:54:20 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on January 05, 2023, 07:54:49 PMThe police operate in a different legal framework than store security. The police by law need probable cause to arrest and something like reasonable suspicion to detain and question.
AFAIK store security don't have the same legal burden to watch one customer more closely than others.
Police need grounds to detain someone, but can question any damn person they like, with or without any reason in the world. You don't like it you're free to walk away - but of course many don't realize that.
They can also surveil any damn person they like.
Not cooperating with police is a reason they can pull.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 06, 2023, 09:38:32 PMI gave it a lot of thought and came up with my own Grand Unified Theory of Racism:
1:
(https://i.imgur.com/7WK8BXv.jpg)
2:
(https://i.imgur.com/aXZ1Sup.jpg)
Makes more sense than the OP