24 ms·

LAPD ended predictive policing but a new effort shares many of their flaws

70 points by 1cvmask 5y ago

vadfa 5y ago
The classic way meant that more black people were arrested than white people. A new system, predictive policing, was introduced. Predictive policing meant that more black people were arrested than white people. A new system, DICFP, was introduced. DICFP means that more black people were arrested than white people. Maybe the problem isn't the way the police are operating.
- geofft 5y ago
  Well, yes, the problem is the idea of policing itself. How do you determine if the police are being successful? If there are more arrests, are they more successful? Perhaps you ask about crime statistics - but those statistics are recorded by the police. I think we all have anecdotal stories of police refusing to take police reports or saying that something is a civil matter, or simply witnessing violations of minor laws (jaywalking, littering, etc.) and doing nothing. Not only does this mean that police can very easily control crime statistics, it means that if your actual goal is preventing some specific crimes, it's not guaranteed that the police are actually working on it. One theory is that the function of the police is to maintain order, by which is meant the status quo. Police exist to make sure that white neighborhoods don't start to feel like black neighborhoods, and that black neighborhoods don't start to feel like white neighborhoods. In that model, the two data-driven approaches (predictive policing and DICFP) fall into the same trap that any hacker on HN who has run into office politics is familiar with: the data isn't being used to decide what to do, it's being used to defend an existing decision by powerful people and argue that the decision is right. Should we keep text-based content or pivot to video? Facebook's PMs, who keep the official record of whether people watch videos, have data claiming we should pivot to video. Should we keep patrolling the same neighborhoods we've always patrolled? The police, who keep the official record of crimes, have data saying that crime is bad there.
  - chuckee 5y ago
    > Not only does this mean that police can very easily control crime statistics One could compare police statistics with victim surveys (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Crime_Victimization_Survey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Crime_Victimization_S...) to check how close they match. Or look at homicide statistics, that are not so easy to control. But then one could no longer dismiss all inconvenient data with a simple "the police are racist". So one keeps one's head in the sand and sticks to that line.
    - simion314 5y ago
      For many crimes there might not be bodies to count. So I think that just from a math point of view(no race/social stuff interpretation) , you can be in a situation where the starting data combined with bad algorithm will keep you stuck in a local minimum. Probably math people can model this issue with abstract terms not to offend any color of politics you prefer but you have the issue of bad implementation and as always garbage in is garbage out, so you might need an algorithm that starts with zero input and uses random data and converges slowly , but you still need a way to make sure you keep the algorithm evolving with changes over large time (maybe reset it and make it start over after a few years)
    - eesmith 5y ago
      Indeed, it opens up the topic to a wider question - why are some things counted as crimes and others not? For example, why isn't wage theft included in the NCVS? Surface-level answer: because in most jurisdictions, it's not a criminal offense. Steal $100 from your employer? Go to jail. Your employer requires unpaid overtime adding up to $1,000? A slap on the wrist at best. Yet employees are victims to billions of dollars of wage theft every year! "Sixty-eight percent of the surveyed workers experienced at least one pay-related violation in the week prior to the survey. On average the workers in the three cities lost a total of $2,634 annually due to workplace violations, out of an average income of $17,616, which translates into wage theft of fifteen percent of income." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_theft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_theft . Does the NCVS list that over half of employees are victims of wage theft? Why, it's almost as if the laws were structured against poor people in favor of business. Hmm, and ethnic minorities are overrepresented in the poor population. What about the illegal collusion between Silicon Valley companies to suppress worker wages? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L... . Were all 64,000 employees counted as victims in the NCVS? Again, no, because that was a civil suit, not a crime that the police should be involved in. But again, why is it under civil law, not criminal? (There's no hint that this wage theft is due to racism.) Or, were the events leading to the lead poisoning of the water of Flint, MI and its coverups a crime? If so, why isn't the population of Flint included as victims? If not, why not? Or, in discussions related to the 'school-prison nexus', when disproportionate disciplinary actions are taken against students of color, are those students counted as victims? Why or why not? You are correct. All this inconvenient data indeed makes people dismiss the 'simple "the police are racist"' and replace it with "the system is both racist and biased in favor of the rich".
- trustfundbaby 5y ago
  > Maybe the problem isn't the way the police are operating What is the problem then? :)
  - 0xdeadb00f 5y ago
    Judging by some of the replies further down. I think we both know what they're implying :|
    - wongarsu 5y ago
      That gettos of socioeconomicly disparaged people lead to an increased crime rate, and over generations lead to a subculture that perpetuates the cycle? Or that specifically making things illegal because they are popular in a subculture can over decades drive those subcultures to integrate an inclination to crime in general into the subculture? We can't effect change if we aren't willing to talk about the causes for the problem, or even acknowledge the existence of a problem.
  - bopbeepboop 5y ago
    That according to the FBI, black people commit 5-10x the violent felonies of white people, per capita. They’re a uniquely violent demographic and it’s unsurprising that their arrest statistics don’t match other demographics. The statistical differences are a result of that underlying difference in rate — rather than anything about the police. No change in police policy except ignoring violent felonies committed by blacks can fix the underlying per capita imbalance. And no — that’s not a race thing, as shown by recent African migrants and other immigrants. It’s a cyclic poverty and crime thing… but that doesn’t change that there’s a correlation between violent felonies and race. A correlation that gets carried forward into arrest statistics.
    - spamizbad 5y ago
      Not sure I follow the logic here. The FBI statistics you’re quoting pertain to arrests, correct? That requires police involvement. In fact, the FBI gathers its data from police departments themselves. So if there is a concentration of police activity aimed at specific communities those numbers are naturally going to be higher. To my knowledge there’s no dataset on who actually does crimes regardless of police involvement (eg: including noninvestigated crimes)
- mschuster91 5y ago
  > Maybe the problem isn't the way the police are operating. The problems are multi-faceted: - some crimes, especially relating to drugs, were specifically invented (or their sentencing made harsher) to target people of color. Just remember the infamous quote of Nixon's top advisor: "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." - poverty, drug abuse and crime form a vicious circle. Over decades, that was mostly restricted to people of color, but the opioid crisis showed that the very same relationship also holds up in White, former solidly middle class people. - related: prison sentences, even short stints in jail, for bullshit charges can and will have disastrous consequences like loss of employment and housing, which combined with the complete lack of a social security network leaves many people with only crime as alternative to make ends meet. - "predictive policing", similar to AI/ML technology, feeds on existing biases in the datasets. When the "classic way" shows a high rate of crime in a PoC and gang dominated neighborhood, any form of "prediction" will direct more police presence there than to White, "rich" neighborhoods. - related: where there is more police, the police will also find more crime. To take the drugs example: two people exchanging cash for crack on the street or an old, run-down car are visible, easy targets for cops. A "cocaine taxi" delivering stuff in an upper-class 'hood, with a brand new 7 series BMW? Won't ever get stopped for a random traffic control, despite the crime being the exact same. Crime can't be combatted solely by using police repression. Anyone who seriously wants to tackle it has to go deep to the roots: a lack of societally positive perspective for way too many people of color thanks to structural discrimination, toxin exposure in "bad 'hoods" (lead paint, industrial effluents, traffic-related stuff like particulate matter dust), quality of education in public schools, a lack of clean and safe drugs forcing people to street vendors, un(der)educated police officers, ... the list is endless, and to fight the problems requires immense amounts of money and political clout.
  - flavius29663 5y ago
    > When the "classic way" shows a high rate of crime in a PoC and gang dominated neighborhood, any form of "prediction" will direct more police presence there than to White, "rich" neighborhoods. You're proposing to pull the police from the bad or black areas and have them police rich or white neighborhoods? This smells like the white savior complex, no offense. A safe person from behind the keyboard, wants police removed from bad black areas...even though the people in those areas want more police https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571/black-americans-police-retain-local-presence.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571/black-americans-police-r...
AdrianB1 5y ago
This is a very sensitive topic and the article is coming from a tabloid, not bringing any trust and objectiveness to the table. Having said that, the article does not convince me the model and the data are the real problem and cannot be solved, but current events are strongly suggesting a case of "we don't like what the data shows". There are mentions of very bad policing practices (to call it politely), but there is no call for action in that direction. Why? The only 2 possible actions in regards to police are the extremes, "abolish the police" and "leave them do anything they want, no matter how bad it is"? Why there is no call to put policing back in the service of citizens, not as city paid thugs as they are in some cases?
- andylynch 5y ago
  I’m not sure the Graun is a tabloid beyond the current dimensions of its print edition- it’s certainly left leaning but generally regarded as a well respected newspaper. In terms of a call to action, that would better be on the opinion pages, or as a wider discussion here and elsewhere.
- Ma8ee 5y ago
  When did the Guardian become a tabloid? Or is a tabloid any newspaper that publish news you don't like?
  - weberer 5y ago
    >When did the Guardian become a tabloid? 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/13/guardian-and-observer-to-relaunch-in-tabloid-format https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/13/guardian-and-o...
    - Ma8ee 5y ago
      Oh well, technically correct then. :)
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- 5y ago
losvedir 5y ago
I get the garbage-in-garbage-out data side of things, but what I don't understand is how it seems to take issue with the idea that certain areas have higher crime rates. For example, how the new system looks like the old system because of the point it makes that some "laser zones" are now "neighborhood engagement zones". This is sort of naively how I'd expect policing to work. I live in a small town between Chicago and Gary, IN, and I know where is safe and where is less so. I'm genuinely curious if "best practices" for the police are not to focus where crimes usually occur? For example, in my town on Halloween, a 13 year old out trick or treating with his grandma was shot and killed. When I read where I sadly wasn't surprised. Like, should or shouldn't the police have been generally patrolling that area that night?
- dmurray 5y ago
  If the police patrol the bad areas, it's racial profiling. If they patrol the good areas, it's favouring the rich. The only winning move is not to patrol at all.
  - sovietmudkipz 5y ago
    I’d hope police chiefs have thicker skin enough to make the right choice despite the (agenda pushing) flak they might receive. At the end of the day, it’s hurt feelings vs hurt people. The mission must come first! That said, this is a position that requires a willingness to expose oneself to the pain and suffering of condemnation, in which the average person’s conviction would very quickly waver and capitulate to whichever wind the “public” opinion (read: corporate media mogul’s opinion) might blow. Haaarrddd stuff to expect.
    - RHSeeger 5y ago
      > flak they might receive But they don't get "flak". They get a community of people misrepresenting the facts making it look like they're racist. And that turns into a national news story. And that turns into them being told to resign because the people above them don't want the political heat. I get that there are police officers that are, indeed, racially biased. But calling what the ones doing the right thing "flak" and dismissing it does a disservice to the good ones. It can be VERY hard to do the right thing, especially when it means it's the last thing you get to do (before you lose your job).
clavicat 5y ago
Worth noting that during the British election season in 2019, The Guardian was all too happy to report that Tory-imposed austerity had defunded the police and reduced patrols, exposing the working-class to criminal predation, and that Labour would give the police all the resources they need to tackle crime. But in an American context, we learn that putting too many cops on the beat is actually bad.
Chris2048 5y ago
I think threads/posts like this often miss an obvious issue, perhaps because it is so hard to answer: why do certain countries need such policing in the first place? There are many places (nations) where there are few shooting without police enforcement. Some of those places even have pretty liberal gun-ownership laws. I think the answer is that those same places have a better feel to them: the people interact as if society is co-operative, united; rather than competitive and lead by virtuous independents. Too much of the American philosophy is a harsh, cut-throat idea of competition at a individual level (I think at a group level it's not so bad, if individuals are still supported). Lack of basic, affordable healthcare options and an insurance mechanism/collusion that unnecessarily penalises anyone without (but few/no low-level plans available); "at-will" employment (with little oversight) as a norm that benefits employers way more than employees, legal norms highly biased towards the wealthy/connected. Add in a history of slavery that created a large, black underclass; a "melting-pot" immigration philosophy that favours cultural/racial diversity over social cohesion, not to mention the historical in-fighting over resources, and you have little/none of that social comrade-ship at a national level. Incidentally, I think something that could sooth the social problems a little is a common standard of "politeness" - which has little to do with respect, or approval. It's about your own behaviour, and a social contract that has to be followed, without regard to whether others do also. It's entirely possible to be polite and aggressive (passive-aggressive?) or show clear disapproval/distain without being impolite. It's rather a guideline for what is permitted (maybe wrt third-parties) in showing distain. I think this maintains the social-regulation impact of behaviour without the aspect of humiliation that becomes resentment and/or violence.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

70 points by 1cvmask 5y ago

The classic way meant that more black people were arrested than white people. A new system, predictive policing, was introduced. Predictive policing meant that more black people were arrested than white people. A new system, DICFP, was introduced. DICFP means that more black people were arrested than white people. Maybe the problem isn't the way the police are operating.

geofft 5y ago
Well, yes, the problem is the idea of policing itself. How do you determine if the police are being successful? If there are more arrests, are they more successful? Perhaps you ask about crime statistics - but those statistics are recorded by the police. I think we all have anecdotal stories of police refusing to take police reports or saying that something is a civil matter, or simply witnessing violations of minor laws (jaywalking, littering, etc.) and doing nothing. Not only does this mean that police can very easily control crime statistics, it means that if your actual goal is preventing some specific crimes, it's not guaranteed that the police are actually working on it. One theory is that the function of the police is to maintain order, by which is meant the status quo. Police exist to make sure that white neighborhoods don't start to feel like black neighborhoods, and that black neighborhoods don't start to feel like white neighborhoods. In that model, the two data-driven approaches (predictive policing and DICFP) fall into the same trap that any hacker on HN who has run into office politics is familiar with: the data isn't being used to decide what to do, it's being used to defend an existing decision by powerful people and argue that the decision is right. Should we keep text-based content or pivot to video? Facebook's PMs, who keep the official record of whether people watch videos, have data claiming we should pivot to video. Should we keep patrolling the same neighborhoods we've always patrolled? The police, who keep the official record of crimes, have data saying that crime is bad there.
- chuckee 5y ago
  > Not only does this mean that police can very easily control crime statistics One could compare police statistics with victim surveys (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Crime_Victimization_Survey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Crime_Victimization_S...) to check how close they match. Or look at homicide statistics, that are not so easy to control. But then one could no longer dismiss all inconvenient data with a simple "the police are racist". So one keeps one's head in the sand and sticks to that line.
  - simion314 5y ago
    For many crimes there might not be bodies to count. So I think that just from a math point of view(no race/social stuff interpretation) , you can be in a situation where the starting data combined with bad algorithm will keep you stuck in a local minimum. Probably math people can model this issue with abstract terms not to offend any color of politics you prefer but you have the issue of bad implementation and as always garbage in is garbage out, so you might need an algorithm that starts with zero input and uses random data and converges slowly , but you still need a way to make sure you keep the algorithm evolving with changes over large time (maybe reset it and make it start over after a few years)
  - eesmith 5y ago
    Indeed, it opens up the topic to a wider question - why are some things counted as crimes and others not? For example, why isn't wage theft included in the NCVS? Surface-level answer: because in most jurisdictions, it's not a criminal offense. Steal $100 from your employer? Go to jail. Your employer requires unpaid overtime adding up to $1,000? A slap on the wrist at best. Yet employees are victims to billions of dollars of wage theft every year! "Sixty-eight percent of the surveyed workers experienced at least one pay-related violation in the week prior to the survey. On average the workers in the three cities lost a total of $2,634 annually due to workplace violations, out of an average income of $17,616, which translates into wage theft of fifteen percent of income." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_theft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_theft . Does the NCVS list that over half of employees are victims of wage theft? Why, it's almost as if the laws were structured against poor people in favor of business. Hmm, and ethnic minorities are overrepresented in the poor population. What about the illegal collusion between Silicon Valley companies to suppress worker wages? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L... . Were all 64,000 employees counted as victims in the NCVS? Again, no, because that was a civil suit, not a crime that the police should be involved in. But again, why is it under civil law, not criminal? (There's no hint that this wage theft is due to racism.) Or, were the events leading to the lead poisoning of the water of Flint, MI and its coverups a crime? If so, why isn't the population of Flint included as victims? If not, why not? Or, in discussions related to the 'school-prison nexus', when disproportionate disciplinary actions are taken against students of color, are those students counted as victims? Why or why not? You are correct. All this inconvenient data indeed makes people dismiss the 'simple "the police are racist"' and replace it with "the system is both racist and biased in favor of the rich".
trustfundbaby 5y ago
> Maybe the problem isn't the way the police are operating What is the problem then? :)
- 0xdeadb00f 5y ago
  Judging by some of the replies further down. I think we both know what they're implying :|
  - wongarsu 5y ago
    That gettos of socioeconomicly disparaged people lead to an increased crime rate, and over generations lead to a subculture that perpetuates the cycle? Or that specifically making things illegal because they are popular in a subculture can over decades drive those subcultures to integrate an inclination to crime in general into the subculture? We can't effect change if we aren't willing to talk about the causes for the problem, or even acknowledge the existence of a problem.
- bopbeepboop 5y ago
  That according to the FBI, black people commit 5-10x the violent felonies of white people, per capita. They’re a uniquely violent demographic and it’s unsurprising that their arrest statistics don’t match other demographics. The statistical differences are a result of that underlying difference in rate — rather than anything about the police. No change in police policy except ignoring violent felonies committed by blacks can fix the underlying per capita imbalance. And no — that’s not a race thing, as shown by recent African migrants and other immigrants. It’s a cyclic poverty and crime thing… but that doesn’t change that there’s a correlation between violent felonies and race. A correlation that gets carried forward into arrest statistics.
  - spamizbad 5y ago
    Not sure I follow the logic here. The FBI statistics you’re quoting pertain to arrests, correct? That requires police involvement. In fact, the FBI gathers its data from police departments themselves. So if there is a concentration of police activity aimed at specific communities those numbers are naturally going to be higher. To my knowledge there’s no dataset on who actually does crimes regardless of police involvement (eg: including noninvestigated crimes)
mschuster91 5y ago
> Maybe the problem isn't the way the police are operating. The problems are multi-faceted: - some crimes, especially relating to drugs, were specifically invented (or their sentencing made harsher) to target people of color. Just remember the infamous quote of Nixon's top advisor: "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." - poverty, drug abuse and crime form a vicious circle. Over decades, that was mostly restricted to people of color, but the opioid crisis showed that the very same relationship also holds up in White, former solidly middle class people. - related: prison sentences, even short stints in jail, for bullshit charges can and will have disastrous consequences like loss of employment and housing, which combined with the complete lack of a social security network leaves many people with only crime as alternative to make ends meet. - "predictive policing", similar to AI/ML technology, feeds on existing biases in the datasets. When the "classic way" shows a high rate of crime in a PoC and gang dominated neighborhood, any form of "prediction" will direct more police presence there than to White, "rich" neighborhoods. - related: where there is more police, the police will also find more crime. To take the drugs example: two people exchanging cash for crack on the street or an old, run-down car are visible, easy targets for cops. A "cocaine taxi" delivering stuff in an upper-class 'hood, with a brand new 7 series BMW? Won't ever get stopped for a random traffic control, despite the crime being the exact same. Crime can't be combatted solely by using police repression. Anyone who seriously wants to tackle it has to go deep to the roots: a lack of societally positive perspective for way too many people of color thanks to structural discrimination, toxin exposure in "bad 'hoods" (lead paint, industrial effluents, traffic-related stuff like particulate matter dust), quality of education in public schools, a lack of clean and safe drugs forcing people to street vendors, un(der)educated police officers, ... the list is endless, and to fight the problems requires immense amounts of money and political clout.
- flavius29663 5y ago
  > When the "classic way" shows a high rate of crime in a PoC and gang dominated neighborhood, any form of "prediction" will direct more police presence there than to White, "rich" neighborhoods. You're proposing to pull the police from the bad or black areas and have them police rich or white neighborhoods? This smells like the white savior complex, no offense. A safe person from behind the keyboard, wants police removed from bad black areas...even though the people in those areas want more police https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571/black-americans-police-retain-local-presence.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571/black-americans-police-r...

AdrianB1 5y ago

This is a very sensitive topic and the article is coming from a tabloid, not bringing any trust and objectiveness to the table. Having said that, the article does not convince me the model and the data are the real problem and cannot be solved, but current events are strongly suggesting a case of "we don't like what the data shows". There are mentions of very bad policing practices (to call it politely), but there is no call for action in that direction. Why? The only 2 possible actions in regards to police are the extremes, "abolish the police" and "leave them do anything they want, no matter how bad it is"? Why there is no call to put policing back in the service of citizens, not as city paid thugs as they are in some cases?

andylynch 5y ago
I’m not sure the Graun is a tabloid beyond the current dimensions of its print edition- it’s certainly left leaning but generally regarded as a well respected newspaper. In terms of a call to action, that would better be on the opinion pages, or as a wider discussion here and elsewhere.
Ma8ee 5y ago
When did the Guardian become a tabloid? Or is a tabloid any newspaper that publish news you don't like?
- weberer 5y ago
  >When did the Guardian become a tabloid? 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/13/guardian-and-observer-to-relaunch-in-tabloid-format https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/13/guardian-and-o...
  - Ma8ee 5y ago
    Oh well, technically correct then. :)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
5y ago

losvedir 5y ago

I get the garbage-in-garbage-out data side of things, but what I don't understand is how it seems to take issue with the idea that certain areas have higher crime rates. For example, how the new system looks like the old system because of the point it makes that some "laser zones" are now "neighborhood engagement zones". This is sort of naively how I'd expect policing to work. I live in a small town between Chicago and Gary, IN, and I know where is safe and where is less so. I'm genuinely curious if "best practices" for the police are not to focus where crimes usually occur? For example, in my town on Halloween, a 13 year old out trick or treating with his grandma was shot and killed. When I read where I sadly wasn't surprised. Like, should or shouldn't the police have been generally patrolling that area that night?

dmurray 5y ago
If the police patrol the bad areas, it's racial profiling. If they patrol the good areas, it's favouring the rich. The only winning move is not to patrol at all.
- sovietmudkipz 5y ago
  I’d hope police chiefs have thicker skin enough to make the right choice despite the (agenda pushing) flak they might receive. At the end of the day, it’s hurt feelings vs hurt people. The mission must come first! That said, this is a position that requires a willingness to expose oneself to the pain and suffering of condemnation, in which the average person’s conviction would very quickly waver and capitulate to whichever wind the “public” opinion (read: corporate media mogul’s opinion) might blow. Haaarrddd stuff to expect.
  - RHSeeger 5y ago
    > flak they might receive But they don't get "flak". They get a community of people misrepresenting the facts making it look like they're racist. And that turns into a national news story. And that turns into them being told to resign because the people above them don't want the political heat. I get that there are police officers that are, indeed, racially biased. But calling what the ones doing the right thing "flak" and dismissing it does a disservice to the good ones. It can be VERY hard to do the right thing, especially when it means it's the last thing you get to do (before you lose your job).

clavicat 5y ago

Worth noting that during the British election season in 2019, The Guardian was all too happy to report that Tory-imposed austerity had defunded the police and reduced patrols, exposing the working-class to criminal predation, and that Labour would give the police all the resources they need to tackle crime. But in an American context, we learn that putting too many cops on the beat is actually bad.

Chris2048 5y ago

I think threads/posts like this often miss an obvious issue, perhaps because it is so hard to answer: why do certain countries need such policing in the first place? There are many places (nations) where there are few shooting without police enforcement. Some of those places even have pretty liberal gun-ownership laws. I think the answer is that those same places have a better feel to them: the people interact as if society is co-operative, united; rather than competitive and lead by virtuous independents. Too much of the American philosophy is a harsh, cut-throat idea of competition at a individual level (I think at a group level it's not so bad, if individuals are still supported). Lack of basic, affordable healthcare options and an insurance mechanism/collusion that unnecessarily penalises anyone without (but few/no low-level plans available); "at-will" employment (with little oversight) as a norm that benefits employers way more than employees, legal norms highly biased towards the wealthy/connected. Add in a history of slavery that created a large, black underclass; a "melting-pot" immigration philosophy that favours cultural/racial diversity over social cohesion, not to mention the historical in-fighting over resources, and you have little/none of that social comrade-ship at a national level. Incidentally, I think something that could sooth the social problems a little is a common standard of "politeness" - which has little to do with respect, or approval. It's about your own behaviour, and a social contract that has to be followed, without regard to whether others do also. It's entirely possible to be polite and aggressive (passive-aggressive?) or show clear disapproval/distain without being impolite. It's rather a guideline for what is permitted (maybe wrt third-parties) in showing distain. I think this maintains the social-regulation impact of behaviour without the aspect of humiliation that becomes resentment and/or violence.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]