4 ms·
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 predi
by 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 agoI 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 agoProbably 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 agoI 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!
- ceceron 6y agoAs you've written, everybody is different, but making assumptions is a fundamental human mechanism to deal with the complex reality, e.g. assuming that black person in central Europe is an immigrant. As long as people do not violate laws/do not behave badly by acting on those assumptions, I'm fine with that. Obviously I'm also proponent of education in the area, to abandon the whole concept of different human races, but I don't believe it's a core of the problem, which is much more complex and interwoven into society and culture. I would also be careful about prosecuting (not tolerating?) worldviews based on their ideas alone, freedom of speech is a very important thing. A thought police on the other thing is a terrible idea and there are scary precedents (e.g. cultural revolution in China). I would rather educate to spread "better" worldviews and prosecute wrongful actions to minimize impact of the "wrong" worldviews.
- Kednicma 6y agoYou're literally just making excuses for why it's okay for people to be bigoted based on misunderstandings of genetics.