4 ms·
I’d like the public to be safe from the public servants who carry guns as part of their day to day work. If those public servants are biased to believe that my
by BryantD 4y ago
I’d like the public to be safe from the public servants who carry guns as part of their day to day work. If those public servants are biased to believe that my neighborhood is less safe than it is, they’re more likely to use force when it isn’t warranted. Thus, I’m not as safe.
I conclude that it is a matter of public safety to avoid reinforcing biases.
Since the article this thread is about shows that some portion of police are willing to believe any damn thing, I think my concerns are reasonable.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- AlbertCory 4y ago> If those public servants are biased to believe that my neighborhood is less safe than it is Could it be "bias" to look at crime statistics? Maybe it's less safe than you think it is.
- BryantD 4y agoIndeed! Seems like the simple answer is "if you're going to install sensors, better to just install them everywhere to avoid bias in any direction."
- AlbertCory 4y agoSo you think that putting them in high crime areas is "bias?"
- 8note 4y agoThe bias is assuming that there's no crime because the sensors weren't there to pick it up. A low crime statistic can either mean crime didn't happen, or the statistic didn't count the crimes that did
- AlbertCory 4y agoSo you think only gunshot sensors measure crime?
- BryantD 4y agoCan I very gently ask you to go back and read the topic of this post? If, after you’ve done that, you still want to argue that police departments are universally good at avoiding bias, we can probably conclude that this isn’t a useful conversation for either of us.
- AlbertCory 4y agoThat seems to be the go-to response when you've lost the argument. OK. We're done here.
- rankfrequency 4y agoYou are either being deliberately obtuse or truly ignorant, given how you have missed the main points of the argument and engaged in strawman fallacies. It is probably the latter, since you have implied (by 'go-to response') that people are commonly asking you to re-read what they said. A strong hint that you are the problem. Besides the original comment, you can also read the multiple comments elsewhere in this thread making similar points. I am not too hopeful it will help, since your reading comprehension is obviously lacking. Clearly, the all-too-common combination of stupidity and arrogance is alive and present in you. It is embarrassing how someone who have lost the plot then turns around and says that it is the other party that has lost the argument. Too stupid to understand and arrogant enough to inflict your ignorance on others. Thankfully, many of the users here easily recognized your hubris. No, it is you who are done. How humiliating.
- AlbertCory 4y agoSuch invective. You must have a pretty empty life to even bother writing so much. But you can't leave it alone now, can you? Maybe now you'll have to write fifty paragraphs. Stay up all night doing it, too.
- LawTalkingGuy 4y agoIn a city you'd deploy them on the corner of every street and alley. Do you deploy them in the same density through rural and country areas? Do you plan to also change fire regulations to call for an even distribution of sprinklers? Presumably you don't want to die from fire-bias either...
- BryantD 4y agoYeah, I think it would be good to deploy them evenly throughout a city. Unfortunately that doesn’t actually happen.