4 ms·
Based on that statistic it is significantly more likely that any particular cyber crime (or accurately dollar raised by cyber crime) is nothing to do with Russi
by Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
Based on that statistic it is significantly more likely that any particular cyber crime (or accurately dollar raised by cyber crime) is nothing to do with Russia than is and yet still this is a justification?
That article doesn't even provide enough information to say that if you had to pick a single country of origin then it's more likely to be Russia than anywhere else.
In terms of generalising based on that sort of thing though, would you similarly justify a suggestion that a drug deal was down to a young black male on the grounds that proportionately young black males in the USA are more likely to be convicted of such offences than young white males? Or would you see that as a sweeping and unhelpful generalisation that tars a whole group based on the activities of a minority?
- icebraining 15y agoApparently you forgot to read the first line of my post. I'm not justifying anything, I'm explaining why the prejudice exists, and that it's not necessarily due to racism.
- Tyrannosaurs 15y agoI get that, I'm trying to explain why it's not a reasonable basis for prejudice.
- icebraining 15y agoOf course it isn't, if it was it wouldn't be prejudice.
- furyofantares 15y agoIt's not "due to" racism, it is racism. Prejudice based on ethnicity or nation of origin is racism.
- icebraining 15y agoNo. "Racism is the belief that inherent different traits in human racial groups justify discrimination". If it's based on the current social or economical situation of Russia, it's prejudice, but not racism. Remember that Russians are "citizens of Russia", not a particular ethnic group.
- furyofantares 15y agoLots of racism emerges partially as a result of some statistical basis in current social or economic situations that for whatever reason correlate to an ethnic group or nation of origin. (And racism is not solely about ethnic groups, it's also about nations of origin -- ethnic groups are just one of the classifications of humans that are considered "race", geographic ancestry is another.) It's not racism to recognize these statistical facts. Racism is when we have prejudice based on them. It's when we slander an entire ethnic group or nation of origin based on the actions of a few of them. This is not justified just because there is more cybercrime in Russia than elsewhere: there is cybercrime everywhere, and the vast majority of Russians are not cybercriminals. It's racism to say we "run the risk of russians" when we mean we run the risk of malevolant cybercriminals. The two terms are not interchangeable. We don't say you "run the risk of blacks" when we mean you might get mugged in downtown LA even if we believe that more muggings in downtown LA come from blacks than other ethnic groups, nor do we say you "run the risk of whites" when we mean you might get killed by a serial killer as you're walking to your car in an empty garage at night, even if we think perpetrators of such crimes are more likely white than anything else.
- icebraining 15y agoI think it depends on what one attributes the statistical fact to; it's only racism if we consider it inherent to the group. If we consider that to be a result of a particular condition that happens to be affect certain group at this point in time, and that any other group would have the same problem if subject to the same condition, I don't see how is that racism. I think your examples are clear prejudice (and no, I wouldn't say them), but they may or may not be racism.