3 ms·

Predictive policing is racist by either of your definitions, isn't it? What are you so animated about? There's a third, simpler definition, for what it's worth

Predictive policing is racist by either of your definitions, isn't it? What are you so animated about? There's a third, simpler definition, for what it's worth: Racism is the (erroneous, falsified) belief that there exist multiple human races/species today. This third definition leads to your first definition, because the false belief in races leads to separating people according to those false beliefs, which leads to groups of people harboring prejudice towards each other, which leads to social constructions which embed those prejudices. It also leads to your second definition, because the false belief in races leads to false emphasis on skin tone, facial features, and other innocuous differences between people. The point isn't to make "racism" or "racist" bad words. The point is to end racist effects in our society. It's inhumane, wasteful, and at odds with science.

ceceron 6y ago
1) predictive policing is racist by either of your definitions, isn't it? Predictive policing isn't racist by any definition. Given an imaginary perfect predictor, one could detect all the potential criminals. Now, it may happen than a part of society (e.g. the pink people) could be over-represented in this group, and algorithm would target them more often. Would it mean that the predictor is racist? In my opinion, it would only mean, that the society itself has some kind of racial bias and the problem is not the predictor's accuracy, but the environment infected with the racial bias towards the pink people. One could argue that predictive policing would help to sustain this bias and it's probably true, but it doesn't entail that the policing itself is racist. There are many honest and reasonable actions that may inadvertently keep the bias alive. Unless we create a fourth circular definition, I've seen recently in the internet: "Any action/stance that doesn't actively counteract racism is racist". If that's the case, then sure, racism is everywhere. Anyhow, predictive policing is still a terrible idea, a perfect dystopian future. It should be illegal even if it wasn't sustaining the racial bias (which it probably does in the current form). 2) your third definition doesn't entail any of the two presented by @maxharris. One can easily believe there are many human races (it's a common error) and still not penalize/marginalize based on it and not believe there is any relation of superiority between those (imaginary) races. And I do not believe, one should call such people racists, as they do not harm anyone, they are just mistaken.
- Kednicma 6y ago
  I believe that ethics is pragmatic: What you believe shines through in what you do. You claim in (2) that there exist racists who never act on their racism, effectively; could you show me where those people are and explain some of their beliefs? I don't think that they exist. Merely to draw the line between people is already enough of a divisive action.
  - ceceron 6y ago
    Probably most of my old family members in Europe would say that the people of different skin colors are of different races. It's just like that, because it is common to hear/read about human races in songs/books/tv/radio/whenever. At the same time they do not hold any negative biases towards them; thinking of them as different, but not worse or better, just incomparable. It is an erroneous view but it does not entail discrimination/hatred/prosecution/etc based on the skin color. Answering your objection from the pragmatist point of view: obviously their behavior somehow depends on they belief in human races, but it doesn't have to be a negative effect. I believe that my aunt would be extra nice to a black person, as she is very hospitable especially to people from far away and she would assume a black person in her country has to be some kind of immigrant. A similar case is sex, believing there are two different sexes doesn't entail sexism. Per analogiam: believing there are different races doesn't entail racism.
    - Kednicma 6y ago
      I know that what you think you're saying is innocuous, but what I'm reading is that you think that racism is excusable because society is broadly racist. Moreover, racist beliefs are excusable on an individual level if they don't lead to harmful racist stereotypes. However, it's still incorrect to stereotype people based on skin color, even if it's polite stereotyping. To think of people with different skin color as different is missing two points: First, that everybody is different from everybody else, and second, that everybody is human! We shouldn't promulgate or tolerate worldviews which get this wrong, because they're deeply prone to fundamental attribution error: Your aunt may well believe that her dark-skinned neighbor does things a certain way because he is an immigrant!
RhysU 6y ago
The GP is concerned that a word appearing in legal statutes is being redefined in a way that changes the law. A fair concern in isolation from policing considerations. "Species"-level differences are off the table. Everybody can have babies with everybody else. All the babies can grow up to have babies with all the other ones. Clearly, humans are 1 species. With "species" addressed the 3rd proposed definition becomes "Racism is the (...) belief that there exist multiple human races". (Is the existence of race contentious? What is being used for the definition of "race"?) I disagree that this 3rd definition leads to the GP's 1st or 2nd. Existence of differences does not always imply separating per those differences. Nor does it require placing false emphasis on anything. It can, certainly, but it need not. The GP's point remains open.
- Kednicma 6y ago
  There is no such thing as race. That's what makes this entire affair so frustrating; merely believing that races exist is racist. If you can show me a society that is racist but that nonetheless ensures equal rights for all races, then I'll retract the point. However, from what I've seen, every government which thinks that race is real has enacted racist policies, so I think that the burden of proof will be hard to meet. CIMO, caste, aboriginals, reservations, blood quanta, and more; governments enshrine whatever hateful bigotry their people demand. It is worth pointing out that, even if race did not exist, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also bans discrimination based on national origin. This covers Central American foreign nationals being neglected and experimented on in our concentration camps; it covers Indian-Americans being rejected for jobs because of the caste of their last name; it even covers African-Americans being pulled over for driving-while-black. Ultimately, most racist practices are netted by the national-origin clause and the concept of race does not need to be invoked.

ceceron 6y ago

1) predictive policing is racist by either of your definitions, isn't it? Predictive policing isn't racist by any definition. Given an imaginary perfect predictor, one could detect all the potential criminals. Now, it may happen than a part of society (e.g. the pink people) could be over-represented in this group, and algorithm would target them more often. Would it mean that the predictor is racist? In my opinion, it would only mean, that the society itself has some kind of racial bias and the problem is not the predictor's accuracy, but the environment infected with the racial bias towards the pink people. One could argue that predictive policing would help to sustain this bias and it's probably true, but it doesn't entail that the policing itself is racist. There are many honest and reasonable actions that may inadvertently keep the bias alive. Unless we create a fourth circular definition, I've seen recently in the internet: "Any action/stance that doesn't actively counteract racism is racist". If that's the case, then sure, racism is everywhere. Anyhow, predictive policing is still a terrible idea, a perfect dystopian future. It should be illegal even if it wasn't sustaining the racial bias (which it probably does in the current form). 2) your third definition doesn't entail any of the two presented by @maxharris. One can easily believe there are many human races (it's a common error) and still not penalize/marginalize based on it and not believe there is any relation of superiority between those (imaginary) races. And I do not believe, one should call such people racists, as they do not harm anyone, they are just mistaken.

Kednicma 6y ago
I believe that ethics is pragmatic: What you believe shines through in what you do. You claim in (2) that there exist racists who never act on their racism, effectively; could you show me where those people are and explain some of their beliefs? I don't think that they exist. Merely to draw the line between people is already enough of a divisive action.
- ceceron 6y ago
  Probably most of my old family members in Europe would say that the people of different skin colors are of different races. It's just like that, because it is common to hear/read about human races in songs/books/tv/radio/whenever. At the same time they do not hold any negative biases towards them; thinking of them as different, but not worse or better, just incomparable. It is an erroneous view but it does not entail discrimination/hatred/prosecution/etc based on the skin color. Answering your objection from the pragmatist point of view: obviously their behavior somehow depends on they belief in human races, but it doesn't have to be a negative effect. I believe that my aunt would be extra nice to a black person, as she is very hospitable especially to people from far away and she would assume a black person in her country has to be some kind of immigrant. A similar case is sex, believing there are two different sexes doesn't entail sexism. Per analogiam: believing there are different races doesn't entail racism.
  - Kednicma 6y ago
    I know that what you think you're saying is innocuous, but what I'm reading is that you think that racism is excusable because society is broadly racist. Moreover, racist beliefs are excusable on an individual level if they don't lead to harmful racist stereotypes. However, it's still incorrect to stereotype people based on skin color, even if it's polite stereotyping. To think of people with different skin color as different is missing two points: First, that everybody is different from everybody else, and second, that everybody is human! We shouldn't promulgate or tolerate worldviews which get this wrong, because they're deeply prone to fundamental attribution error: Your aunt may well believe that her dark-skinned neighbor does things a certain way because he is an immigrant!

RhysU 6y ago

The GP is concerned that a word appearing in legal statutes is being redefined in a way that changes the law. A fair concern in isolation from policing considerations. "Species"-level differences are off the table. Everybody can have babies with everybody else. All the babies can grow up to have babies with all the other ones. Clearly, humans are 1 species. With "species" addressed the 3rd proposed definition becomes "Racism is the (...) belief that there exist multiple human races". (Is the existence of race contentious? What is being used for the definition of "race"?) I disagree that this 3rd definition leads to the GP's 1st or 2nd. Existence of differences does not always imply separating per those differences. Nor does it require placing false emphasis on anything. It can, certainly, but it need not. The GP's point remains open.

Kednicma 6y ago
There is no such thing as race. That's what makes this entire affair so frustrating; merely believing that races exist is racist. If you can show me a society that is racist but that nonetheless ensures equal rights for all races, then I'll retract the point. However, from what I've seen, every government which thinks that race is real has enacted racist policies, so I think that the burden of proof will be hard to meet. CIMO, caste, aboriginals, reservations, blood quanta, and more; governments enshrine whatever hateful bigotry their people demand. It is worth pointing out that, even if race did not exist, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also bans discrimination based on national origin. This covers Central American foreign nationals being neglected and experimented on in our concentration camps; it covers Indian-Americans being rejected for jobs because of the caste of their last name; it even covers African-Americans being pulled over for driving-while-black. Ultimately, most racist practices are netted by the national-origin clause and the concept of race does not need to be invoked.