Gun Control - Topic

[Ten oz]

12 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I agree. Lack of fairness is widespread. Whites have it better than blacks. The rich have it better than the poor. The powerful have it better than the weak.

A problem that arises when addressing those disparities though is that often times the same broad brush that is criticized for causing the disparities (e.g. police assuming blacks are reaching for a gun) is used to address the disparities (e.g. the cop shot a black man so he must be racist).

While things may get better over time, I fear the problems will never go away. The rich & powerful have been abusing the poor & weak forever. I see nothing that tells me that will change.

True but it has gotten significantly better. Throughout Europe, and the world broadly, nobles and royalty could basically kill people indiscriminately and rape anyone they wanted. People use to literally own other people. Society has come a long way.There have been many victories is the fight for equality and I'd argue those who are pushing for equality are arguably winning the war. The war just isn't over yet. 

[swansont]

14 hours ago, KipIngram said:

So my question is simple.  Do we really think that the only way to reduce the 36k annual fatality count is by total disarmament?  I think there must be more intelligent ways to attack this problem. 

Is anyone proposing this? 

[CharonY]

14 minutes ago, zapatos said:

A problem that arises when addressing those disparities though is that often times the same broad brush that is criticized for causing the disparities (e.g. police assuming blacks are reaching for a gun) is used to address the disparities (e.g. the cop shot a black man so he must be racist).

I think this is a slightly problematic example as the two elements you mentioned here are not separate. With racist you seem to to indicate a excessive prejudice or chauvinism of sorts. But the issue is broader, more subtle and far more insidious. 

In the broadest sense, most folks are to some degree racist in so far as we categorize folks that we do not know according to their outer feature which unconsciously may subtly change our perception. This is not limited to features associated with race, of course. Nonetheless it does alter perception without one needing to have a fully fledged-out racial mindset, rather it is a rather subtle bias.  Examples of studies targeting such biases include the speed with which folks associate the word "thug" with a seemingly black face vs a white one. These biases are formed throughout ones life including media consumption.

Now, individually this does not necessarily trigger actions against black subjects as in this example. However, it can make it just a bit more likely. Over large numbers, this leads to imbalance in e.g. police violence and since it is not necessarily based on racial frame work, perpetrators can as likely be of the same race as the victim. If it happens in large scale we got a system of racial discrimination that is not based on active racism of the individual actors. It becomes an emergent properties of biases, so to speak.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

The law gives police wide discretion on when to use force, which is very reasonable considering we hand them a gun and insert them into potentially dangerous situations. We train them then ask them to make judgement calls. The average citizen is not allowed a similar wide discretion regarding use of force. It is therefore not reasonable to judge all police actions by the standards that apply to you and me.

I might not be allowed to shoot a man running away from me, but an officer is allowed to decide if that person is a danger to others, and therefore can be justified in shooting them in the back.

Police should only face the 12 if they've violated police standards, not if they've violated civilian standards.

2

The judge is there to direct the twelve not make the decision. Everyone should face the jeopardy of their choices...

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

That chap was shot by a civilian, not a police officer. He was not shot in the course of her executing her job.

First of all, I was not talking about this case in particular, just in general as a response to dimreepr,

Second, she was a police officer, not a civilian. You do not lose your authority as an officer when you go off duty.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Second, she was a police officer, not a civilian. You do not lose your authority as an officer when you go off duty.

 

And who judges there competence? On or off duty?

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

The judge is there to direct the twelve not make the decision. Everyone should face the jeopardy of their choices...

Then you should change the law, because right now the police are not required to face the 12 under all the same circumstances that a civilian must face the 12.

Everyone does face jeopardy, it is just that jeopardy is different for different people.

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

And who judges there competence? On or off duty?

Read the regulations and laws. You don't seem to accept there are different laws and rules for different classes of people.

[dimreepr]

11 minutes ago, zapatos said:

You don't seem to accept there are different laws and rules for different classes of people.

 

I do accept that... hence the judge and the twelve, I just don't accept they're exempt from the same rule of law... 

Edited September 10, 2018 by dimreepr

[zapatos]

Just now, dimreepr said:

I do accept that... hence the judge, I just don't accept they're exempt from the same rule of law... 

Yet you keep saying that they should both face the judge given the same circumstances.

 

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

I think this is a slightly problematic example as the two elements you mentioned here are not separate. With racist you seem to to indicate a excessive prejudice or chauvinism of sorts. But the issue is broader, more subtle and far more insidious.

Fine, then make my second example (e.g. the cop shot a black man because of an unconscious and subtle change of perception)

My point is that sometimes police are doing exactly the right thing when they shoot someone, and we shouldn't assert it has anything to do with race unless we have evidence it has something to do with race.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Yet you keep saying that they should both face the judge given the same circumstances.

No, I said they should both face the same law and the same consequences, who judge's that seems to be the weak link in the chain...

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

No, I said they should both face the same law and the same consequences

Fine, have it your way. Hit someone in the head if they refuse to let you put cuffs on them, and we'll treat you the same way we treat a cop who does the same thing.

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Fine, have it your way. Hit someone in the head if they refuse to let you put cuffs on them, and we'll treat you the same way we treat a cop who does the same thing.

If we're not all measured by the same rule, how do we know who's best?

[Ten oz]

25 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Fine, then make my second example (e.g. the cop shot a black man because of an unconscious and subtle change of perception)

My point is that sometimes police are doing exactly the right thing when they shoot someone, and we shouldn't assert it has anything to do with race unless we have evidence it has something to do with race.

I assume this means you do not feel race or gender has been shown to be a factor in this case? If so you are technically correct though I personally have a hard time believing that if the Officer walked into the wrong apartment and it was occupied by a teenage white female it ends the same way. I cannot prove it but to CharonY's point I certainly don't see instances in the news where unarmed teenage white females are being shot by police officers.  

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I assume this means you do not feel race or gender has been shown to be a factor in this case? If so you are technically correct though I personally have a hard time believing that if the Officer walked into the wrong apartment and it was occupied by a teenage white female it ends the same way. I cannot prove it but to CharonY's point I certainly don't see instances in the news where unarmed teenage white females are being shot by police officers.  

Actually I wasn't addressing this case in particular. I was responding to a post that made an observation about our overall system, and I was responding in kind. My follow up comments were meant to be about the overall system as well.

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If we're not all measured by the same rule, how do we know who's best?

If that's your objective then as I said, judge everyone under the same set of rules. And let's not stop with police vs civilian. Surgeons, accountants, lawyers and trash collectors should all have the same rules too.

[dimreepr]

10 minutes ago, zapatos said:

If that's your objective then as I said, judge everyone under the same set of rules.

47 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

No, I said they should both face the same law and the same consequences, who judge's that seems to be the weak link in the chain...

 

18 minutes ago, zapatos said:

If that's your objective then as I said, judge everyone under the same set of rules. And let's not stop with police vs civilian. Surgeons, accountants, lawyers and trash collectors should all have the same rules too.

yep...

 

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm

Do you know better?

[Itoero]

On ‎9‎/‎09‎/‎2018 at 1:31 AM, MigL said:

Alaska is not in Canada.
And although similar to our Yukon Territory, the laws are not the same.

I know. I bought a firearm in Alaska. I(a non immigrant alien) was allowed to carry a firearm in Alaska if I had a huntinglicense (which is easy to buy).  I then traveled to Yukon (via Chicken) and had to fill in some papers to legalize my weapon in Canada.

Edited September 10, 2018 by Itoero

[DirtyChai]

19 hours ago, iNow said:

20 hours ago, DirtyChai said:

we really don't know the level of unconscious bias a cop may have, nor the role it plays in determining whether or not they shoot a suspect.  How do you measure it?  How do you mitigate it's effect?

On top of that, it's just an unsatisfying answer.  What are we to tell black people,  "Yep, that's it, unconscious bias, nothing we can do about it, sorry, I really don't know what else to tell ya bud, just don't make any sudden movements I guess -  sucks to be you, eh?"

These questions have easy answers that have already been offered. Now we just need the will to act on those answers. 

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2016/12/cover-policing.aspx

It doesn't seem so clear cut and as easy as you make it out to be. . .

From your linked article:

"There's evidence of racial disparities at many levels of law enforcement, from traffic stops to drug-related arrests to use of force. But the roots of those disparities aren't always clear. Experts point to systemic problems as well as the implicit (largely unconscious) biases"

"It's a nuanced problem but people continue to take a polarized view,"

"Similar to community participants, officers showed evidence of bias in their reaction times. But those biases evident in their reaction times did not translate to their ultimate decision to shoot or not shoot"

"While research points to some patterns in implicit bias, we still have a lot to learn about the ways that biases influence people's decisions and behavior in the real world"

"Yes, implicit bias can affect us. The more important questions are, which persons are affected, and under what conditions?"

"We feel like we have to do something, but sometimes the action we take proves to be merely window dressing,"

"There are contractors that provide [implicit bias training], but there's zero evidence that what they do has an impact,"

"We don't know how to lastingly change implicit biases, particularly those as robust and prevalent as race and crime—and not for lack of trying."

"In two studies with more than 6,300 participants, all of the interventions reduced implicit prejudice in the short term. But none of those changes lasted more than a couple of days following the intervention—and in some cases, the effects vanished within a few hours"

 

All these points  are more or less reflective of my initial reply above.

 

Here are some additional helpful links:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kim-farbota/black-crime-rates-your-st_b_8078586.html 

"Black people, more often than white people, live in dense urban areas. Dense urban areas are more heavily policed than suburban or rural areas. When people live in close proximity to one another, police can monitor more people more often. In more heavily policed areas, people committing crimes are caught more frequently."

 

https://www.vox.com/cards/police-brutality-shootings-us/us-police-racism
"Some of these disparities are explained by socioeconomic factors — such as poverty, unemployment, segregation, and neglect by the police when it comes to serious crimes — that lead to more crime and violence in black communities. As a result, police tend to be more present in black neighborhoods — and therefore may be more likely to take policing actions, from traffic stops to arrests to shootings, in these areas."

 

 

18 hours ago, iNow said:

given the comparatively high number of whites regardless of location type, his assumptions are simply wrong

 

That graph is showing populations by entire counties.  These urban counties aslo include suburban cities.  For example, Wayne county is shown as an urban county and includes Detroit, but it also includes about 50 suburbs of Detroit.  So it's a bit misleading and irrelevant to context of my position.

I understand my statements were rather general, but to understand what I'm trying to say we can't look at this on a state level, or a county level or even on a city level.  We have to break these big cities down and look at the individual neighborhoods that are still relatively segregated.

We have to look at why it's the densely populated black neighborhoods that are policed more often which leads to the disproportionate number of interactions with police, a disproportionate number of traffic stops, a disproportionate number of arrests, and of course, a disproportionate number of shootings.

 

8 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Many rural areas have much higher crime rates than densely populated cities.

Yes I understand that, but to be more specific, I'm looking at how crime rates compare within neighboring communities which determines how police are allocated within a city/metropolitan area.

 

8 hours ago, Ten oz said:

You are not speaking to real data but rather just repeating popular notions.

As you highlighted, I was talking about Detroit.  If you look at the map below, you'll see how the majority of blacks are crammed into a relatively small area compared to whites in the suburbs and beyond.

Detroit has a crime rate that is about 10 times higher than the surrounding area which leads to a greater level of police allocation and a disproportionate amount of interaction.
 

 

8 hours ago, Ten oz said:

These 27 towns and cities have a higher per capita of violent crime per 10,000 residents than Detroit, Michigan

https://madison.com/news/the-most-violent-small-towns-in-america/collection_5085a625-56c2-59c1-a230-b098d9877de1.html#1

Correct, but those cities have lower populations ranging from a whopping 8 people to 22,000.  While the crime rate is high, the overall amount of crime is still relatively low so there is no need for a high level of police allocation.  

Chicago for example is about to allocated 600 more police to high crime neighborhoods.  Many of the cities in your link don't even have 600 citizens.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-chicago-police-deploy-officers-20180807-story.html# 

"430 officers have been added to patrols in five of the hardest-hit districts on the West and South sides. Those numbers will increase to 600 by the weekend, he said."

 

 

If you look at the map above, you'll see that those 600 police are going to be allocated to the blue areas on the west and south sides.  Those are poverty stricken black neighborhoods and its only going to increase the amount of police interaction.  They aren't sending the police to downtown Chicago that is packed with a bunch of "rich" white people living lavishly in high-rise condos with much lower crime rates.

And don't think for a second that I'm trying to insinuate that blacks are somehow inherently more prone to crime than whites.  I grew up in the middle of Detroit and am well aware of the socioeconomic problems that unfortunately make it seem that way to certain people.  The whole thing is just heartbreaking.

 

Edited September 10, 2018 by DirtyChai

[Ten oz]

@DirtyChai, Obviously more police officers are required to police more people. Larger populations are obviously going to have more of everything in total numbers: schools, malls, fire fighters, police officers, and etc. That is as true for cities that are overwhelmingly white as they are for cities which are highly diverse.

There are 550 thousand black people living in Detroit. There are 42 million black people living in the Unite States. Millions of black people live in rural areas throughout the south other states like Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Texas, the Carolina's, Maryland, Virginia, and etc. Using Detroit as your model for how black people broadly live as it relates to population density doesn't work. It is like saying Salt Lake City, Boise, Boulder, Scottsdale, Madison, or etc are reflective of how white people live. These places represent small fractions of the total population. 

 

[CharonY]

22 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I cannot prove it but to CharonY's point I certainly don't see instances in the news where unarmed teenage white females are being shot by police officers.  

Perhaps it is better not to focus on individual instances but rather overall patterns. 

 

20 hours ago, DirtyChai said:

If you look at the map above, you'll see that those 600 police are going to be allocated to the blue areas on the west and south sides.  Those are poverty stricken black neighborhoods and its only going to increase the amount of police interaction.  They aren't sending the police to downtown Chicago that is packed with a bunch of "rich" white people living lavishly in high-rise condos with much lower crime rates.

While these may affect how data is skewed, more rigorous analyses would be needed to ascertain that what you describe does actually explain the disproportionate response we are seeing. And in fact, there are studies who now start looking into these micropatterns, but they are still fairly young. Nonetheless with what we do have and starting from rough to ever finer details, the majority of data still points to effects that are not simply explainable by socioeconomic factors or crime rates alone.

If we take a large-scale view, drawing data from 20 US states, folks found that after accounting for age, gender, time and location, blacks are more frequently stopped than Hispanics and whites. Among stopped drivers blacks and Hispanics were more likely to be searched and ticketed. (See Pierson et al. 2017; available on a arxiv "A large-scale analysis of racial disparities in police stops across the United States".

Another study by Ross (Plos one 2015) using a Bayesian approach showed that the likelihood of a deadly shooting is higher for black unarmed black person than for unarmed white person (and in some areas, even higher than armed white person). An interesting aspect, which goes to your above point is that there are differences across counties, though the data in that study was no fine enough to resolve location-specifics with too much detail. Nonetheless, it does correlate with income equality and size of the black population. However, interestingly the likelihood of being shot while black does not correlated with crime rates. That does seem to contradict or at least put a caveat that higher shooting incidences are crime related per se. Note that in some cases policing may be perception rather than data-driven. E.g. a poor neighborhood could be policed heavier despite not having a significantly different rate of crime. But due to higher policing, more arrests are made pushing the detected rates upward. I do not recall the precise studies, but for marijuana arrests this pattern was detected (i.e. being white and/or middle class allowed a higher rate of undetected marijuana consumption).

It was also found that in areas with higher segregation (and other factors indicative of differences between black and white populations) the bias towards fatal shootings of blacks is increased. This indicates that disparity in socioeconomic status had a higher influence than status in itself. Part of it is, IIRC the so-called place hypothesis, in which segregated minorities are viewed as especially threatening. In fact, a number of studies found that black-white segregation had a strong effect on black killings, for Hispanics the effect was linear and detectable, but less dramatic.

Other studies have looked at individual confrontations e.g. using body cameras (Willits & Makin, 2017, J Res Crime and Deliquency). Here, the authors found that  use of force seems to be more quickly applied to male subjects and especially to black males.

While the research is obviously difficult as police shootings are relatively rare incidence and a lot of factors come into play, most research seem to indicate that especially after accounting for factors such as crime rates, structural racial bias can likely not be dismissed. The  case where the scenario of increased fatality in relationship with crime is more likely to hold are cases in which the killed person was armed. Nonetheless, in a system where shooting someone may have a lower threshold, even small structural biases may lead to an increase in unnecessary fatalities.

I should add that there was also one fairly recent study which was limited to a 2-year data set which found that potentially crime rate does account for black-white differences (they looked at incidences of assault to normalize the reported crime rate). However, the set was too limited to look at unarmed shootings specifically.

Edited September 11, 2018 by CharonY

[DirtyChai]

On 9/10/2018 at 4:41 PM, Ten oz said:

Obviously more police officers are required to police more people. . .that is as true for cities that are overwhelmingly white as they are for cities which are highly diverse

Right, but you're missing the point that population itself is not the only determining factor in how police are allocated to a particular city and the neighborhoods in which they're deployed.

For example, tho they have similar total populations, Chicago has 11,954 officers and Houston  5,182.
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/police-officers-per-capita-rates-employment-for-city-departments.html

Furthermore:

"Cities with great economic inequality between racial groups will not strengthen their police force if poverty is minimal because less prosperous groups pose little threat to affluent groups if few live in poverty. Cities with great poverty will not heighten policing if economic inequality between racial groups is negligible because less prosperous groups do not threaten more successful groups if economic disparities are small and poverty is widespread. However, cities with high levels of poverty and great economic inequality between racial groups will enhance their police force because affluent groups are threatened by groups that are worse off when economic disparities are pronounced and many live in poverty.

"https://www.citylab.com/equity/2013/08/how-race-and-inequality-influence-size-urban-police-forces/6510/

"Our criminal justice system and different aspects of our criminal justice system are racist in application. . .Even if there was no intent in the design for racism, we've gotten to a place where it's the result of our policies."

"minority residents of the community are getting policed more intensely than people that live in other neighborhoods that have smaller proportion of minority residents and lower crime rates."

https://www.vox.com/2015/5/7/8562077/police-racism-implicit-bias

 

On 9/10/2018 at 4:41 PM, Ten oz said:

Using Detroit as your model for how black people broadly live as it relates to population density doesn't work.

It does in terms of who's actually being affected.  And while the model of Detroit isn't going to fit perfectly with other areas, we do see similar patterns of density and segregation within various cities like Chicago, St. Louis, Cleveland, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Atlanta, New Orleans, etc. . .

 

On 9/10/2018 at 4:41 PM, Ten oz said:

Millions of black people live in rural areas throughout the south other states like Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Texas, the Carolina's, Maryland, Virginia, and etc.

True, but are those living sparsely throughout rural areas in the south the ones being largely affected?  It still looks like police shootings of blacks in the south are primarily concentrated in and around cities like Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Tampa etc. . .

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/police-shootings-2018/?utm_term=.bf2d32e348c9

 

On 9/10/2018 at 4:46 PM, CharonY said:

Note that in some cases policing may be perception rather than data-driven. E.g. a poor neighborhood could be policed heavier despite not having a significantly different rate of crime.

And that was really the primary purpose for bringing up  crime rates in the first place.  It's the perception of danger that fuels bias.  Again, using Detroit as an example, there are neighborhoods with high rate rates of crime and those with much lower rates, but in he officer's mind it doesn't really matter much since it all looks and feels the same.  Add to that the heightened level of police interaction that increases the odds of being subject to police bias and it's no wonder the the numbers disproportionate.

 

On 9/10/2018 at 4:46 PM, CharonY said:

due to higher policing, more arrests are made pushing the detected rates upward. I do not recall the precise studies, but for marijuana arrests this pattern was detected

I believe that study was linked in an article that I quoted earlier:

"Black people, more often than white people, live in dense urban areas. Dense urban areas are more heavily policed than suburban or rural areas. When people live in close proximity to one another, police can monitor more people more often. In more heavily policed areas, people committing crimes are caught more frequently. This could help explain why, for example, black people and white people smoke marijuana at similar rates, yet black people are 3.7 times as likely to be arrested for marijuana possession."

 

On 9/10/2018 at 4:46 PM, CharonY said:

in a system where shooting someone may have a lower threshold, even small structural biases may lead to an increase in unnecessary fatalities.

I apologize in advance for repeating myself, but as I asked earlier of another poster, how do we mitigate that?

Studies show that bias exists, however:
"we still have a lot to learn about the ways that biases influence people's decisions and behavior in the real world"
"Yes, implicit bias can affect us. The more important questions are, which persons are affected, and under what conditions?"
 "We feel like we have to do something, but sometimes the action we take proves to be merely window dressing,"
"There are contractors that provide [implicit bias training], but there's zero evidence that what they do has an impact,"
"We don't know how to lastingly change implicit biases, particularly those as robust and prevalent as race and crime—and not for lack of trying."
"In two studies with more than 6,300 participants, all of the interventions reduced implicit prejudice in the short term. But none of those changes lasted more than a couple of days following the intervention—and in some cases, the effects vanished within a few hours"

Given that, I wouldn't put my faith in cops effectively policing their own bias.

While researchers scramble to find solutions to control that bias, bias even among black police officers, It seems a more practical approach would be to adopt and bring more attention to CDC recommendations and programs aimed at addressing our violent culture and educating our youth that would ultimately provide opportunity for blacks to become more integrated throughout society.  And indeed we already have.

"cities that do the best job of creating racial economic equality and widespread opportunity may be able to devote fewer resources to keeping the peace. One would think they'd also be less likely to devote extensive resources to "racially discriminatory" police tactics."

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2013/08/how-race-and-inequality-influence-size-urban-police-forces/6510/

 

[CharonY]

16 hours ago, DirtyChai said:

I apologize in advance for repeating myself, but as I asked earlier of another poster, how do we mitigate that?

That is the million dollar question, isn't it? Technically we are still mostly at the stage trying to figure out which biases exist, how they are formed. In many cases there is the perception that there is no bias, thus nothing needs to be done to address it in the first place.

A big issue that this goes beyond merely police encounters. In an earlier study by Jackson et al (2014, J Personality Soc Psych) found that black children are seen to be more adult and less innocent than their white peers or in other studies were black folks are perceived as more threatening. The way I see it, we are early in the process in merely understanding what is going on (and there is already much pushback). Actually addressing the issue will take quite a while and involve a lot of trial and error, unless we manage to understand the causes better.

That being said, I remember I read some reports in which counties tried to address police shootings specifically, focusing on de-escalation methods for example. I do not recall the details but I remember that it was hailed as one of the success stories in mitigating police violence. Whether those measures would be effective in the long run or even transferable would require further research.

[DirtyChai]

On 9/12/2018 at 12:05 PM, CharonY said:

In many cases there is the perception that there is no bias, thus nothing needs to be done to address it in the first place.

And that may have a lot to do with the word "racism" often being used to describe implicit/unconscious bias.  Racism is a very strong word and is often associated with things like the KKK, lynchings, etc.  Most people can't relate to that.  It's also very hard to have a conversation on the issue when people fear being shouted down as a racist for having an opposing viewpoint.  They just get turned off and remove themselves from the issue altogether.

In other cases, the perception of no bias may be fueled by overstating instances of perceived racial bias.  Continually "crying wolf" has the tendency to divert attention away from legitimate issues.  "Police brutality" becomes cliched and people stop paying attention.  Protesters start being viewed as merely standing ankle deep in water shouting at the tide - and conservatives that may have otherwise taken notice start to become more skeptical and begin viewing it all as some ploy to advance a liberal agenda.  Since they feel this issue of disparity doesn't directly affect them (or at least something that can be fixed within their life time) they start to focus more on self preservation of their conservative ideals, especially now given the volatility of the political climate.

Ultimately, we really need to start having more honest and inviting conversations on the issue, and I think terms like "implicit bias" are more conducive to that effect.  However, I'm not very optimistic.  There's always the threat of radical trolls on both sides stirring everyone up and thwarting progress, now more than ever it seems.

 

Edited September 13, 2018 by DirtyChai

[CharonY]

36 minutes ago, DirtyChai said:

And that may have a lot to do with the word "racism" often being used to describe implicit/unconscious bias.  Racism is a very strong word and is often associated with things like the KKK, lynchings, etc.  Most people can't relate to that.  It's also very hard to have a conversation on the issue when people fear being shouted down as a racist for having an opposing viewpoint.  They just get turned off and remove themselves from the issue altogether.

Well, the issue is that there is a disconnect between what it is and what folks think it is. A structural bias that systematically disadvantages folks of certain ethnicities is (from what understand) termed racism. Or at least the outcome is.

The issue here really seems to be that folks have learned that it is a bad thing and do not believe that they can associated with it. I mean, perhaps it does help to distinguish between folks that e.g. associate blacks with thugs and those that have a whole racial ideology behind them. But in some ways it sounds to me like branding (though it may be also of academic value due to the difference in mechanism). Though I also feel that it may eventually just become a PC term for explicit racism. 

On the other, other hand, I could see that a broader discussion educating folks on the matter would be beneficial as a whole. After all, those on the receiving end will often have a hard time distinguishing what is happening and making any kind of pushback may result in folks thinking they are crying wolf (while actually being disadvantaged by certain mechanisms).

[zapatos]

13 minutes ago, DirtyChai said:

And that may have a lot to do with the word "racism" often being used to describe implicit/unconscious bias.  Racism is a very strong word and is often associated with things like the KKK, lynchings, etc.  Most people can't relate to that.  It's also very hard to have a conversation on the issue when people fear being shouted down as a racist for having an opposing viewpoint.  They just get turned off and remove themselves from the issue altogether.

In other cases, the perception of no bias may be fueled by overstating instances of perceived racial bias.  Continually "crying wolf" has the tendency to divert attention away from legitimate issues.  "Police brutality" becomes cliched and people stop paying attention.  Protesters start being viewed as merely standing ankle deep in water shouting at the tide - and conservatives that may have otherwise taken notice start to become more skeptical and begin viewing it all as some ploy to advance a liberal agenda.  Since they feel this issue of disparity doesn't directly affect them (or at least something that can be fixed within their life time) they start to focus more on self preservation of their conservative ideals, especially now given the volatility of the political climate.

Ultimately, we really need to start having more honest and inviting conversations on the issue, and I think terms like "implicit bias" are more conducive to that effect.  However, I'm not very optimistic.  There's always be the threat of radical trolls on both sides stirring everyone up and thwarting progress, now more than ever it seems.

 

Yours is a response I tend to see from conservatives. "I'm not racist, I just have an opposing viewpoint, and it's your fault we cannot talk because you keep yelling at me".

Of course the liberal shouting at someone is convinced that person is indeed a racist.

You say 'crying wolf'. I say 'hitting the nail on the head'. We all see things from our unique vantage point.

In my mind the problem is not so much use of terminology or lack of dialogue. It is that people generally see themselves as clear thinkers who understand what is really going on, and are justified in their beliefs. In other words, everyone thinks they are right and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong.

 

 

[Ten oz]

47 minutes ago, zapatos said:

In my mind the problem is not so much use of terminology or lack of dialogue. It is that people generally see themselves as clear thinkers who understand what is really going on, and are justified in their beliefs. In other words, everyone thinks they are right and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong.

Beautiful thing about human consciousness whether one honestly believes themselves to be a clear thinker they can still portray themselves as one. People knowing lie all the time to influence their environment. Of course most racist people claim they aren't racist. Listening to what is said vs what is observable in society at large is foolish in my opinion.