5 ms·

Jackson MS uses shot spotter and is 80% black, and no, they aren't deploying it in predominantly white "minority" neighborhoods.

kbenson 4y ago
Do you seriously think by "minority" they meant at the local populace level and not national populace level? When has that ever been the colloquial use?
- ATsch 4y ago
  It is pretty frequently done when arguing in bad faith, or (sometimes deliberately) misunderstanding that "minority" refers to power and not numbers.
- fastball 4y ago
  Since it's the locality that is deciding whether or not to use ShotSpotter isn't that the most reasonable level to be talking about?
  - kbenson 4y ago
    No, as that would be a purposeful misinterpretation of the intent of the original poster, if it was obvious they didn't mean it to be interpreted that way. Even if the response that used it differently was meant to make a valid point (I believe it was, as they expanded on it later), the way they used minority did nothing to help that point and instead caused unnecessary contention. It would have been far more effective for their point to say "Jackson MS has a population and police department that are both majority black, and they still choose to deploy shotspotter in black neighborhoods.". Then we could jump right to exploring reasons why that might be, including valid uses of shotspotter because of effectivenessas well as other incentives regardless of it's effectiveness.
    - fastball 4y ago
      To me it read less like misinterpretation and more like reframing.
      - kbenson 4y ago
        Eh, I don't think that actually changes my point. Even as a reframing, when looked at with respect to how well it communicated its point and fostered understanding and discussion of that point, it was poorly executed.
- googlryas 4y ago
  No, I didn't. It was somewhat of an offhand comment. I'll break it down a little more directly: 1) Jackson MS is 80+% black. 2) The (mayor + city council) of Jackson MS is 75% black 3) The command staff of Jackson MS police department is 100% black. 4) The city and police department decided to deploy shot spotter in Jackson 5) (don't get distracted by this please) The city has not deployed shot spotter in areas that are predominantly white Given those 5 points, where is Jackson deploying their shot spotter tech? Is it in predominantly black/minority neighborhoods? Yes. Why are they doing that? Does the predominantly black government intend to keep black people down?
  - michaelmrose 4y ago
    Systems overtly or tacitly designed to fuck minorities tend to successfully fuck minorities even when operation of local mechanics are effected by minority agents. This may be non obvious but for example black cops tend to use disproportionate force against black suspects in areas where such behavior is culturally and systemically tolerated. Cops and suspects are in an adversarial situation and being part of team cop or team suspect is more important than sharing a skin color.
    - pxmpxm 4y ago
      >Systems overtly or tacitly designed to fuck minorities tend to successfully fuck minorities even when operation of local mechanics are effected by minority agents. An infallible argument; the oppressee can just as well be opressor, because otherwise we'd have to reconsider our preferred conjecture.
      - michaelmrose 4y ago
        Not at all you just compare how for example black people are treated period instead of how black people are treated by white people. The alternative is like a mirror of the argument that a fellow isn't racist because he has a black friend. It's parody masquerading as analysis.
        4y ago
Woberto 4y ago
I think they meant races or ethnicities that are a minority in the US at large, since that's how the term "minority" is typically used
- googlryas 4y ago
  Sure, but if a city that is predominantly black, whose government is predominantly black, decides to use shot spotter, it would be silly to claim that it is being deployed in minority areas in order to oppress minorities.
  - trs8080 4y ago
    You win! The commenter made a grave semantic mistake by not adding "in the US" to "minority" and now their comment is completely meaningless and without merit.
    - googlryas 4y ago
      OP's comment implied that it is a tool used by the majority(whites) to deploy in minority(black) areas, in order to oppress them. I provided an example of basically the blackest city in America deploying it within their own city. Why did they deploy a tool of oppression on themselves? It seems you were very distracted that I pointed out that whites are a minority within Jackson MS, but that was really just an offhand comment and not the point of the post.
      - trs8080 4y ago
        > OP's comment implied that it is a tool used by the majority(whites) to deploy in minority(black) areas, in order to oppress them. The OP said nothing like this. You're projecting a lot of personal biases onto their comment. But you know that, and are trying to hone in a single example in order to strawman/red-herring valid concerns about the technology and its effects. > It seems you were very distracted that I pointed out that whites are a minority within Jackson MS, but that was really just an offhand comment and not the point of the post. That was the whole point of your post. You literally said nothing else.

kbenson 4y ago

Do you seriously think by "minority" they meant at the local populace level and not national populace level? When has that ever been the colloquial use?

ATsch 4y ago
It is pretty frequently done when arguing in bad faith, or (sometimes deliberately) misunderstanding that "minority" refers to power and not numbers.
fastball 4y ago
Since it's the locality that is deciding whether or not to use ShotSpotter isn't that the most reasonable level to be talking about?
- kbenson 4y ago
  No, as that would be a purposeful misinterpretation of the intent of the original poster, if it was obvious they didn't mean it to be interpreted that way. Even if the response that used it differently was meant to make a valid point (I believe it was, as they expanded on it later), the way they used minority did nothing to help that point and instead caused unnecessary contention. It would have been far more effective for their point to say "Jackson MS has a population and police department that are both majority black, and they still choose to deploy shotspotter in black neighborhoods.". Then we could jump right to exploring reasons why that might be, including valid uses of shotspotter because of effectivenessas well as other incentives regardless of it's effectiveness.
  - fastball 4y ago
    To me it read less like misinterpretation and more like reframing.
    - kbenson 4y ago
      Eh, I don't think that actually changes my point. Even as a reframing, when looked at with respect to how well it communicated its point and fostered understanding and discussion of that point, it was poorly executed.
googlryas 4y ago
No, I didn't. It was somewhat of an offhand comment. I'll break it down a little more directly: 1) Jackson MS is 80+% black. 2) The (mayor + city council) of Jackson MS is 75% black 3) The command staff of Jackson MS police department is 100% black. 4) The city and police department decided to deploy shot spotter in Jackson 5) (don't get distracted by this please) The city has not deployed shot spotter in areas that are predominantly white Given those 5 points, where is Jackson deploying their shot spotter tech? Is it in predominantly black/minority neighborhoods? Yes. Why are they doing that? Does the predominantly black government intend to keep black people down?
- michaelmrose 4y ago
  Systems overtly or tacitly designed to fuck minorities tend to successfully fuck minorities even when operation of local mechanics are effected by minority agents. This may be non obvious but for example black cops tend to use disproportionate force against black suspects in areas where such behavior is culturally and systemically tolerated. Cops and suspects are in an adversarial situation and being part of team cop or team suspect is more important than sharing a skin color.
  - pxmpxm 4y ago
    >Systems overtly or tacitly designed to fuck minorities tend to successfully fuck minorities even when operation of local mechanics are effected by minority agents. An infallible argument; the oppressee can just as well be opressor, because otherwise we'd have to reconsider our preferred conjecture.
    - michaelmrose 4y ago
      Not at all you just compare how for example black people are treated period instead of how black people are treated by white people. The alternative is like a mirror of the argument that a fellow isn't racist because he has a black friend. It's parody masquerading as analysis.
      - 4y ago

Woberto 4y ago

I think they meant races or ethnicities that are a minority in the US at large, since that's how the term "minority" is typically used

googlryas 4y ago
Sure, but if a city that is predominantly black, whose government is predominantly black, decides to use shot spotter, it would be silly to claim that it is being deployed in minority areas in order to oppress minorities.
- trs8080 4y ago
  You win! The commenter made a grave semantic mistake by not adding "in the US" to "minority" and now their comment is completely meaningless and without merit.
  - googlryas 4y ago
    OP's comment implied that it is a tool used by the majority(whites) to deploy in minority(black) areas, in order to oppress them. I provided an example of basically the blackest city in America deploying it within their own city. Why did they deploy a tool of oppression on themselves? It seems you were very distracted that I pointed out that whites are a minority within Jackson MS, but that was really just an offhand comment and not the point of the post.
    - trs8080 4y ago
      > OP's comment implied that it is a tool used by the majority(whites) to deploy in minority(black) areas, in order to oppress them. The OP said nothing like this. You're projecting a lot of personal biases onto their comment. But you know that, and are trying to hone in a single example in order to strawman/red-herring valid concerns about the technology and its effects. > It seems you were very distracted that I pointed out that whites are a minority within Jackson MS, but that was really just an offhand comment and not the point of the post. That was the whole point of your post. You literally said nothing else.