3 ms·

No. The reason he had the experience he had was because it was a "wealthy" suburb, not because it was "white". There is a difference between correlation and cau

by maratd 10y ago

No. The reason he had the experience he had was because it was a "wealthy" suburb, not because it was "white". There is a difference between correlation and causation. The root cause wasn't race, but the low volume typical of wealthy suburbs, allowing the judge to take his time. Put him in a situation where he needs to arraign a 100 people in a session and he won't be as nice anymore. There are a number of other posters who hit the nail on the head. The problem is really with how we fund the courts. More volume needs to equate with proportional increase in resources.

kgppkr 10y ago
If you feel the parent's assertion of racism isn't sufficiently well proven, then your counter argument (that it's just about wealth) should also be dismissed for similar logical flaws. As such, you should NOT be saying 'No.' Your decision to strongly reject racism and instead assert an economic explanation with precisely equally flawed evidence tells us much about you (that you hold your own evidence to a lower standard than others; that you are eager to argue that racism does not exist; that your logic is weak), but it does not add to the conversation. Additionally, it's unreasonable to assert that there's "really" just one problem at work here. Your ability to program a computer does not mean that you know how to diagnose and fix a very complex system that you haven't studied, and that is broken in a multitude of ways. I get that you think it does... but that's just your giant white male tech ego. You're ignorant on this topic, and anything you write will make the world dumber and a worse place. Just stop. Don't defend your idiocy. DOn't talk about race or justice ever again. You clearly don't care enough to do a good job of it.
- hobs 10y ago
  Please dont mix a useful argument and things like "Dont talk about race or justice ever again" that is the same type of drivel as the GP.
- rimantas 10y ago
  You do some study yourself. Will educate your and save us from reading your nonsense.
- sctb 10y ago
  Personal attacks are not OK on Hacker News. Please don't do this here.
philwelch 10y ago
Name some wealthy black suburbs before you rule out structural racism.
- travmatt 10y ago
  """ On May 31 and June 1, 1921, hundreds of whites led a racially motivated attack on the black community of Greenwood in Tulsa, Oklahoma, killing some 300 people, mostly blacks. The attack, carried out on the ground and by air, destroyed more than 35 blocks of the district, then the wealthiest black community in the nation. More than 800 people were admitted to hospitals and more than 6,000 black residents were arrested and detained, some for as many as eight days. [2] The official count of the dead by the Oklahoma Bureau of Vital Statistics was 39. """ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot
Someone 10y ago
"The root cause wasn't race" That doesn't necessarily imply it isn't racist. There is such a thing as indirect discrimination. http://blog.oup.com/2015/07/indirect-discrimination-us-uk-law/ http://blog.oup.com/2015/07/indirect-discrimination-us-uk-la...: "Indirect discrimination occurs when an apparently neutral rule or policy has a disproportionate and adverse impact on a protected group, and supposedly neutral policies become suspect unless they can be shown to be necessary for achieving legitimate goals. For example, prohibiting headgear (which would affect Sikhs), imposing a minimum height requirement (which could exclude women), or requiring a graduation degree (in a social context where a particular racial group has very few university graduates)." In this case, one may wonder why courthouses in poorer neighborhoods aren't as well maintained as those in richer ones, and why, if the court is overloaded with cases, there aren't more judges applied to it. _If_ that's because of a rule "a courthouse per X citizens", one could argue that's indirect racism. However, that same blog post seems to indicate that US law isn't that strong in making "disparate impact" illegal, if the impact isn't intentional.

by maratd 10y ago

kgppkr 10y ago

If you feel the parent's assertion of racism isn't sufficiently well proven, then your counter argument (that it's just about wealth) should also be dismissed for similar logical flaws. As such, you should NOT be saying 'No.' Your decision to strongly reject racism and instead assert an economic explanation with precisely equally flawed evidence tells us much about you (that you hold your own evidence to a lower standard than others; that you are eager to argue that racism does not exist; that your logic is weak), but it does not add to the conversation. Additionally, it's unreasonable to assert that there's "really" just one problem at work here. Your ability to program a computer does not mean that you know how to diagnose and fix a very complex system that you haven't studied, and that is broken in a multitude of ways. I get that you think it does... but that's just your giant white male tech ego. You're ignorant on this topic, and anything you write will make the world dumber and a worse place. Just stop. Don't defend your idiocy. DOn't talk about race or justice ever again. You clearly don't care enough to do a good job of it.

hobs 10y ago
Please dont mix a useful argument and things like "Dont talk about race or justice ever again" that is the same type of drivel as the GP.
rimantas 10y ago
You do some study yourself. Will educate your and save us from reading your nonsense.
sctb 10y ago
Personal attacks are not OK on Hacker News. Please don't do this here.

philwelch 10y ago

Name some wealthy black suburbs before you rule out structural racism.

travmatt 10y ago
""" On May 31 and June 1, 1921, hundreds of whites led a racially motivated attack on the black community of Greenwood in Tulsa, Oklahoma, killing some 300 people, mostly blacks. The attack, carried out on the ground and by air, destroyed more than 35 blocks of the district, then the wealthiest black community in the nation. More than 800 people were admitted to hospitals and more than 6,000 black residents were arrested and detained, some for as many as eight days. [2] The official count of the dead by the Oklahoma Bureau of Vital Statistics was 39. """ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot

Someone 10y ago

"The root cause wasn't race" That doesn't necessarily imply it isn't racist. There is such a thing as indirect discrimination. http://blog.oup.com/2015/07/indirect-discrimination-us-uk-law/ http://blog.oup.com/2015/07/indirect-discrimination-us-uk-la...: "Indirect discrimination occurs when an apparently neutral rule or policy has a disproportionate and adverse impact on a protected group, and supposedly neutral policies become suspect unless they can be shown to be necessary for achieving legitimate goals. For example, prohibiting headgear (which would affect Sikhs), imposing a minimum height requirement (which could exclude women), or requiring a graduation degree (in a social context where a particular racial group has very few university graduates)." In this case, one may wonder why courthouses in poorer neighborhoods aren't as well maintained as those in richer ones, and why, if the court is overloaded with cases, there aren't more judges applied to it. _If_ that's because of a rule "a courthouse per X citizens", one could argue that's indirect racism. However, that same blog post seems to indicate that US law isn't that strong in making "disparate impact" illegal, if the impact isn't intentional.