3 ms·
You seem to imply that intent is all that matters. But the law and history regarding discrimination in the US is more nuanced. For example, perhaps literacy te
by jjeaff 4y ago
You seem to imply that intent is all that matters. But the law and history regarding discrimination in the US is more nuanced.
For example, perhaps literacy tests in order to vote in the Jim Crow south were purely based out of concern that only informed voters should be able to vote. Assuming they were applied evenly to both whites and minorities (they weren't), one could draw the conclusion that even though most of the people prohibited from voting were minorities, the intent wasn't racist.
But that's not how most racism works.
- dmix 4y agoSo basically even if we assume the data shows they were only deployed to the highest crime areas (and for sake of discussion we're not debating the legitimacy of that data like you could with biased Jim Crow literacy tests AND feigning that shotspotter actually provides some IRL value), it would still be discrimination because in a wider context it's just another tool that contributes to the oppression of minorities? Which, in the sum of everything, ultimately out-ranks the value of attempting to address the homicides and gun violence that plagues their communities through law enforcement. Therefore it's a net negative for society? (Apologies if I'm being overly literal here, my brain tends to seek the most rational explanations for everything).