5 ms·

Guiliani was able to mostly solve the problem in New York... he was able to do things like eliminate freedom of movement for blacks Where do I even begin with

Guiliani was able to mostly solve the problem in New York... he was able to do things like eliminate freedom of movement for blacks Where do I even begin with this? Let's ignore for just a second the part where you seem to label black people a "problem population". Praise for any public policy that restricts citizens' rights specifically on the basis of race must be rejected outright. There are ways to fight crime without trampling on the rights of law abiding citizens. What disturbs me most is that you don't even seem to realize that your example of Guiliani's supposedly successful crime policy is an almost textbook definition of institutionalized discrimination. As an African American living in Manhattan the policies you advocate are obviously objectionable to me. Behind the "Modest Proposal" rhetoric in your posts rests the belief that it's somehow defensible to limit the rights of black people (or any population) based on a greater prevalence of crime.

h4nkoslo 10y ago
Let's ignore for just a second the part where you seem to label black people a "problem population". Let's not. I don't "seem to", it's kind of the crux of my argument (see below). Do you not think it's fair to describe the situation on the south side of chicago as "a problem"? Are there hordes of rogue Ents pillaging it, or is it maybe the local population's actions? http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/09/06/chicago-hits-500-murders-2016-after-deadly-labor-day-weekend/89905916/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/09/06/chicago-hits-5... Praise for any public policy that restricts citizens' rights specifically on the basis of race must be rejected outright "Praise for", or "assessment of"? I'm only doing the latter here. There are ways to fight crime without trampling on the rights of law abiding citizens. Effective ways? If you've cracked the case, stop writing immediately and call up Mayor Rahm; your Nobel awaits you. What disturbs me most is that you don't even seem to realize that your example of Guiliani's supposedly successful crime policy is an almost textbook definition of institutionalized discrimination No, I get that. I explicitly labeled those efforts as an example of institutionalized suppression of a problem population, which I in turn labeled as unethical given the current regime. My syllogism is simple. 1) Crime is primarily a problem of non-asian minority populations 2) Efforts to target that crime would need to focus on that population, either explicitly, or via an algorithm laundering the inference (eg, the sorts of algorithms in the actual article) 3) But that would be racist 4) So they won't be done under the present regime 5) Somehow they solved it in the past though. We should understand the mechanisms in case they are useful. Further Study Needed. Inability to distinguish advocacy for assessment makes polite conversation difficult. I can't figure out why I should care that you're black, or that a policy would be objectionable to you specifically. I can think of 500 reasons and counting in Chicago alone to contemplate nexuses of crime, why we are currently institutionally unable to pursue empirically successful solutions, and if there are alternate mechanisms for doing so.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
  I think you might be underestimating the ability of people to assess the situation. It's not like people aren't aware of these options. They rather have good reasons to reject them. Namely, that implementing them would mean that the state would need to commit crimes in massive numbers against the human rights of many innocent people. Committing crimes against some group of people in order to reduce the crimes committed against another group of people is kindof difficult to justify.
  - h4nkoslo 10y ago
    Right, and in fact I said as much.
- alasdair_ 10y ago
  >1) Crime is primarily a problem of non-asian minority populations Which crimes? Are we talking murder and rape, or tax evasion and speeding? Let's say we are solely talking about violent crimes: it would be equally true to say that violent crime is primarily a problem of males, and it's probably true that it's a function of income levels and education as well. Should we "restrict the movement" of men in order to reduce crime? Perhaps we should bar anyone without at least a bachelors degree from traveling more than two miles from their home without a permit? What about demanding that anyone who earns less than 50K a year wear a GPS-monitored ankle bracelet? I don't understand the seemingly myopic focus on race as the only variable.

h4nkoslo 10y ago

Let's ignore for just a second the part where you seem to label black people a "problem population". Let's not. I don't "seem to", it's kind of the crux of my argument (see below). Do you not think it's fair to describe the situation on the south side of chicago as "a problem"? Are there hordes of rogue Ents pillaging it, or is it maybe the local population's actions? http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/09/06/chicago-hits-500-murders-2016-after-deadly-labor-day-weekend/89905916/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/09/06/chicago-hits-5... Praise for any public policy that restricts citizens' rights specifically on the basis of race must be rejected outright "Praise for", or "assessment of"? I'm only doing the latter here. There are ways to fight crime without trampling on the rights of law abiding citizens. Effective ways? If you've cracked the case, stop writing immediately and call up Mayor Rahm; your Nobel awaits you. What disturbs me most is that you don't even seem to realize that your example of Guiliani's supposedly successful crime policy is an almost textbook definition of institutionalized discrimination No, I get that. I explicitly labeled those efforts as an example of institutionalized suppression of a problem population, which I in turn labeled as unethical given the current regime. My syllogism is simple. 1) Crime is primarily a problem of non-asian minority populations 2) Efforts to target that crime would need to focus on that population, either explicitly, or via an algorithm laundering the inference (eg, the sorts of algorithms in the actual article) 3) But that would be racist 4) So they won't be done under the present regime 5) Somehow they solved it in the past though. We should understand the mechanisms in case they are useful. Further Study Needed. Inability to distinguish advocacy for assessment makes polite conversation difficult. I can't figure out why I should care that you're black, or that a policy would be objectionable to you specifically. I can think of 500 reasons and counting in Chicago alone to contemplate nexuses of crime, why we are currently institutionally unable to pursue empirically successful solutions, and if there are alternate mechanisms for doing so.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
I think you might be underestimating the ability of people to assess the situation. It's not like people aren't aware of these options. They rather have good reasons to reject them. Namely, that implementing them would mean that the state would need to commit crimes in massive numbers against the human rights of many innocent people. Committing crimes against some group of people in order to reduce the crimes committed against another group of people is kindof difficult to justify.
- h4nkoslo 10y ago
  Right, and in fact I said as much.
alasdair_ 10y ago
>1) Crime is primarily a problem of non-asian minority populations Which crimes? Are we talking murder and rape, or tax evasion and speeding? Let's say we are solely talking about violent crimes: it would be equally true to say that violent crime is primarily a problem of males, and it's probably true that it's a function of income levels and education as well. Should we "restrict the movement" of men in order to reduce crime? Perhaps we should bar anyone without at least a bachelors degree from traveling more than two miles from their home without a permit? What about demanding that anyone who earns less than 50K a year wear a GPS-monitored ankle bracelet? I don't understand the seemingly myopic focus on race as the only variable.