BLM, or WLM? [MOD WARNING: FIRST POST]

Cordell

Right
I don't trust them because they didn't look at the algorithm, they only looked at the results. The results look racist only because the statistics looks racist, but neither can actually be racist. They went in biased and they fell for the confirmation bias, and they did it willingly.

If the results are wrong and racist, you need to look at the algorithm, you need to find the cause before claiming you found a problem.
If the results are right, they can't be racist.

Overheal

So we’re on the same page: the results have to be racist for the algorithm to be racist? So then you agree with the findings reported in the article.

You argued as a layperson that the algorithm must consider race to be racist but the researchers here found that not to be the case in their findings, using a control group method by designing their own pretrial tool that did not factor in race.

Methods
We collected a sample of all arrests made of black, Hispanic, and white individuals in New York City in 2015. The final sample included more than 175,000 defendants, of whom 49% were black (86,227 defendants), 36% Hispanic (64,109 defendants), and 14% white (25,117 defendants).6 We then applied our risk assessment tool—developed solely for the purposes of research—to this sample of defendants to gain insight into how its use would likely affect defendant outcomes in New York City.7 To that end, we conducted an analysis of the extent to which our tool classified defendants in racially-disparate ways— and of how those classifications could be expected to play out in the real-world under several alternative policy scenarios.
The risk algorithm we developed for this study drew exclusively on criminal history and demographic factors—the factors generally proven to be the most predictive of a future arrest. While the inclusion of gender as a factor in risk assessment tools remains controversial generally, its inclusion in the current tool improves the overall accuracy of the risk algorithm and mitigates the tendency of the tool to over- classify female defendants as high-risk. In other words, female defendants in our sample have substantially lower actual rates of re-arrest than male defendants, even after controlling for criminal history. The tool did not explicitly use race or ethnicity in calculating risk scores.
Specifically, our assessment relied on the nine risk factors listed below to estimate the probability of a new arrest over a two-year tracking period. Although studies of pretrial risk often limit their analysis specifically to the pretrial period, longer tracking periods can improve the stability of algorithms for predicting outcomes of interest.8 In 2015, 87% of criminal cases in New York City were disposed within one year of arrest, and 36% of those defendants who were re-arrested in our sample were re-arrested prior to the disposition of their case. Thus, the tracking period selected for the current analysis covers both pretrial and post-disposition periods for the vast majority of defendants.

6 Center for Court Innovation
Criminal History9
1. Prior convictions
2. Prior jail or prison sentence
3. Prior failure to appear in court
4. Probation status
Current Case Characteristics
5. Charge type
6. Charge severity
7. Concurrent open cases
Demographic Characteristics
8. Age
9. Gender
Details regarding the specific items, weights, and predictive performance of the tool can be found in Appendix A.
Tool developers typically measure predictive accuracy using area-under-the-curve (“AUC”) statistics, with AUCs above 0.700 indicating good predictive accuracy by current industry standards. Our tool had strong predictive accuracy for defendants as a whole (AUC=.745). Moreover, the five risk categories produced by the tool (minimal, low, moderate, moderate-high, and high-risk) clearly differentiated among defendants with varying rates of re-arrest over a two-year follow-up. For example, only one out of 10 defendants labeled minimal-risk went on to be re-arrested compared to more than seven out of 10 defendants labeled high-risk.

I trust if you hadn’t dismissed the article out of hand you would have scratched a little at it and found the paper they were hyperlinking to to see whether your counter argument held water.

Cordell

We're definitely not on the same page, the results were not racist, they were results, the algorithm was not proven racist and from what I'm seeing is not even actually used. I'm not a layman when it comes to algorithms and statistics, fwiw.

Maybe can you try harder to find some example of systemic racism that still happens today?

AbusesToilets

White people owned slaves, bought from black slavers in Africa.

White people also fought brutal wars and passed laws to end slavery.

It's a tiresome argument that only ever seeks to highlight historical failures instead of acknowledging progress and improvement.

Overheal

AbusesToilets wrote: »

White people owned slaves, bought from black slavers in Africa.

White people also fought brutal wars and passed laws to end slavery.

It's a tiresome argument that only ever seeks to highlight historical failures instead of acknowledging progress and improvement.

Why can’t both be acknowledged? The abolition of slavery is not historical information that is being suppressed. It is surely an imperative of History to learn about historical failures alongside triumphs: we teach both the victory of the Allies over the Axis powers in WWII, as well as the Holocaust. Though again, Americans fought to end slavery… “except as a form of punishment.” It wasn’t a whites only endeavor either so I take umbrage with your argument that “whites ended slavery,” as many blacks fought and died for the same cause, and so did native Americans and others to a lesser extent.

AbusesToilets

Overheal wrote: »

Why can’t both be acknowledged? The abolition of slavery is not historical information that is being suppressed. It is surely an imperative of History to learn about historical failures alongside triumphs. Though again, Americans fought to end slavery… “except as a form of punishment.” It wasn’t a whites only endeavor either so I take umbrage with your argument that “whites ended slavery,” as many blacks fought and died for the same cause, and so did others to a lesser extent.

You can take umbrage all you like, the fact remains the war was initiated and overwhelmingly fought by white people, a not insignificant number of Irish background.

The BLM movement would portray white society as only ever being a source of evil and oppression, and not acknowledge that many of the advances in overcoming discrimination wouldn't have happened without their contributions.

Identity politics are a cancer, and serve well their goal of sowing discord and division.

Overheal

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You can take umbrage all you like, the fact remains the war was initiated and overwhelmingly fought by white people, a not insignificant number of Irish background.

The BLM movement would portray white society as only ever being a source of evil and oppression, and not acknowledge that many of the advances in overcoming discrimination wouldn't have happened without their contributions.

Identity politics are a cancer, and serve well their goal of sowing discord and division.

If identity politics are a cancer why did you just make an identity politics argument? Are you here to sow discord and division?

The BLM movement “would?” Either it does or it doesn’t and I’m quite certain the movement recognizes the support they get and have received from other Americans, including Caucasian Americans. And, I should add, the BLM movement is not a monolith of black skinned people just as MAGA is not a monolith of caucasians.

As for the racism even the Irish faced when they got to America, it was not inconsequential either.

AbusesToilets

Overheal wrote: »

If identity politics are a cancer why did you just make an identity politics argument? Are you here to sow discord and division?

The BLM movement “would?” Either it does or it doesn’t and I’m quite certain the movement recognizes the support they get and have received from other Americans, including Caucasian Americans. And, I should add, the BLM movement is not a monolith of black skinned people just as MAGA is not a monolith of caucasians.

As for the racism even the Irish faced when they got to America, it was not inconsequential either.

I referenced the whiteness of the civil war era as counter point to your to claim to the inherent racism of the American State.

BLM is certainly very happy to recognize the contribution of white people to the cause of expanding their coffers. Those luxury houses don't come cheap after all.

Overheal

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I referenced the whiteness of the civil war era as counter point to your to claim to the inherent racism of the American State.

BLM is certainly very happy to recognize the contribution of white people to the cause of expanding their coffers. Those luxury houses don't come cheap after all.

I don’t honestly care about the luxury house non scandal. Activist leaders get rich, buy homes, afforded right to live their entire lives being activists. Okay. Isn’t that what the NRA also is? Or the NAACP? Anywhere you have an activist issue there’s a need to finance it and quite frankly, none of them are living in monasteries.

Inherent racism within the United States is not wholly disproven by the evidence of white Americans combating slavery. All it indicates is that racism has opponents inside the United States. The lynchings and Jim Crow era that followed the civil war ultimately proves that the civil war did not wash away the racism inherent within the United States. Your assertion is fundamentally as useless as saying Overheal is proof the US isn’t inherently racist because he is not racist (though to hear others tell it, I am, so, wouldn’t I be their proof that the United States *is* inherently racist?)

biko

If America was so racist then why do blacks and Hispanics move there in their thousands?
Particularly since they must have heard by BLM how insanely bad it is there.

If America is so racist why do we see so many hoax hate crimes?
Isn't there enough hate crimes already, they need to conjure up more?

Overheal

biko wrote: »

]If America was so racist then why do blacks and Hispanics move there in their thousands?
Particularly since they must have heard by BLM how insanely bad it is there.

If America is so racist why do we see so many hoax hate crimes?
Isn't there enough hate crimes already, they need to conjure up more?

Sounds like the plantation owners argument: the slaves have it so much better here than in Africa.

It’s not a valid argument.

Diagnosing America’s inherent racism doesn’t require being compared to anywhere else in the world. It either is or it isn’t. It seems like a logical fallacy to pretend you could enumerate all the reasons people immigrant to the United States. At best, your argument relies on an intangible assumption that immigrants would not come to the US whatsoever if they knew about racism in the US. You are also inherently assuming that immigrants have perfect knowledge of the US and it’s laws culture and history prior to arrival. That seems like a very thin basis to work upon. These are not canaries and this is not a coal mine where we are asking if there is or isn’t breathable air. Ergo, immigrants coming to America in spite of racism in America does not disprove racism in America. In fact we have exhaustive documentation to show there is inherent racism against immigrants, especially illegal immigrants. As noted previously, the Irish came to America in spite of violent racism they experienced when they got here. The Paddy Wagon was so named for a reason. So, you can’t expect me to adopt your reductive argument that racism can’t exist or be so bad if people of those races still come to America

AbusesToilets

What about this, what about that? On and on

What about if folks stopped empowering hucksters and conmen to speak for the black community? What if folks stopped looking to play the eternal victim?

AbusesToilets

Overheal wrote: »

I don’t honestly care about the luxury house non scandal. Activist leaders get rich, buy homes, afforded right to live their entire lives being activists. Okay. Isn’t that what the NRA also is? Or the NAACP? Anywhere you have an activist issue there’s a need to finance it and quite frankly, none of them are living in monasteries.

Inherent racism within the United States is not wholly disproven by the evidence of white Americans combating slavery. All it indicates is that racism has opponents inside the United States. The lynchings and Jim Crow era that followed the civil war ultimately proves that the civil war did not wash away the racism inherent within the United States. Your assertion is fundamentally as useless as saying Overheal is proof the US isn’t inherently racist because he is not racist (though to hear others tell it, I am, so, wouldn’t I be their proof that the United States *is* inherently racist?)

Yes, racism didn't end with the conclusion of the Civil War, nor the passing of the Civil Rights Act. It's been a continuous , oftentimes frustratingly slow journey of progress. Black people in the us today are immeasurably better off than their predecessors. Much work remains to be done dealing with persistent issues, some specific to the black community, and many that straddle all demographics.

I'm tired of having Black issues dominate the media landscape. You can't listen to a story on NPR without them emphasising black people as the most put upon. It continually perpetuates blackness as victomhood. Inherently derogatory and infantalising.

Overheal

The current 'domination' of black issues is coming from opposition that sprang out of nowhere (probably a Fox News monologue) about Critical Race Theory. It seems to have come up recently and strongly sometime shortly after Derek Chauvin's murder conviction (the week of April 19). https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=critical%20race%20theory&geo=US

They are both measurably and immeasurably better off, and yet continue to be set back, as others benefit in similarly measurable and immeasurable ways.

biko

Overheal wrote: »

Sounds like the plantation owners argument: the slaves have it so much better here than in Africa.

I wonder was that actually ever really said, or if you just made it up right now.

Retr0gamer

biko wrote: »

I wonder was that actually ever really said, or if you just made it up right now.

Doesn't matter if it was or wasn't. Its an example that highlights the logical fallacy of your ridiculous argument.

Retr0gamer

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Doesn't matter if it was or wasn't. Its an example that highlights the logical fallacy of your ridiculous argument.

Lol.

Classic.

biko

"It doesn't even matter".
Sure it does matter.
My statement is provable whereas OHs counterargument hasn't been proven.

Just because my statement doesn't feel right doesn't make is ridiculous - if America is so bad for POC why do POC risk their lives* to get there?



*Through Mexican cartels territories etc

Retr0gamer

Deleted User wrote: »

Lol.

Classic.

I didn't expect you to understand.

biko wrote: »

"It doesn't even matter".
Sure it does matter.
My statement is provable whereas OHs counterargument hasn't been proven.

Just because my statement doesn't feel right doesn't make is ridiculous - if America is so bad for POC why do POC risk their lives* to get there?



*Through Mexican cartels territories etc

Actually it is provable. A quick google will bring up dozens of academic articles were this logical fallacy historically was used to justify slave trade. So the OH's statement is provable.

It's nothing to do with gut feeling. Your statement is a slippery slope fallacy. The OH has pointed out that the same slippery slope fallacy was used to justify slavery. Immigrants are going to america, of course that's provable. It also means absolutely nothing.

Basically it doesn't matter if immigrants are going to america to go to a better place. America still has problems with racism and immigration and just because the places that these immigrants are coming from have worse issues doesn't negate the fact that they are still present in american society.

Overheal

biko wrote: »

I wonder was that actually ever really said, or if you just made it up right now.

You can find plenty of literature about it online. The arguments are still echoed today by modern racists, similar sentiment has been expressed even on national television by the likes of Tucker Carlson and his guests.

“ They argued that African societies and cultures were unskilled, uneducated and savage. For example, Michael Renwick Sergant, a merchant from Liverpool claimed: ‘We ought to consider whether the negroes in a well regulated plantation, under the protection of a kind master, do not enjoy as great, nay, even greater advantages than when under their own despotic governments'. In his publication 'The history of the British West Indies' (published 1819), Mr Edwards also uses this argument when he describes a woman who said she prefered Jamaica to Guninea as people were not killed there. Here the extract.”

http://abolition.e2bn.org/slavery_112.html

Overheal

biko wrote: »

Just because my statement doesn't feel right doesn't make is ridiculous - if America is so bad for POC why do POC risk their lives* to get there?



*Through Mexican cartels territories etc

I’d love to hear your own answer to your question. Why do they risk their lives? What is your thesis statement here? You tell us why they do it.

AbusesToilets

Overheal wrote: »

I’d love to hear your own answer to your question. Why do they risk their lives? What is your thesis statement here? You tell us why they do it.

For better lives, economic and social opportunity. Hence the success enjoyed by immigrants from Africa, with Nigerians in particular doing very well.

In racist America. Odd.

Overheal

AbusesToilets wrote: »

For better lives, economic and social opportunity. Hence the success enjoyed by immigrants from Africa, with Nigerians in particular doing very well.

In racist America. Odd.

Can you elaborate?

I’d still like Biko to answer his own self proclaimed non-ridiculous statement/question.

AbusesToilets

Overheal wrote: »

Can you elaborate?

I’d still like Biko to answer his own self proclaimed non-ridiculous statement/question.

https://www.ft.com/content/ca39b445-442a-4845-a07c-0f5dae5f3460

[Url] https://medium.com/@joecarleton/why-nigerian-immigrants-are-the-most-successful-ethnic-group-in-the-u-s-23a7ea5a0832 [/url]

Retr0gamer

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I didn't expect you to understand.
.

I understand perfectly well my friend.

I just found it amazingly brilliantly on-brand for you to say what you said.

If it's an sentiment you agree with "it doesn't matter if it was said or not", yet if you had disagreed with the sentiment, you have a bitch, whine, stamp your feet and shout "strawman" and "whataboutery"

I just found it very amusing how your standards and expectations are so malleable.

Overheal

AbusesToilets wrote: »

https://www.ft.com/content/ca39b445-442a-4845-a07c-0f5dae5f3460

[Url] https://medium.com/@joecarleton/why-nigerian-immigrants-are-the-most-successful-ethnic-group-in-the-u-s-23a7ea5a0832 [/url]

Your first link is broken and the second doesn't even mention racism. So your sum statement about Nigerians "doing very well. In racist America. Odd." is not really satisfied with this, it doesn't really paint a picture of Nigerians doing very well in spite of racism. Not that a lone group of black immigrants doing well (Nigerians) demonstrates a lack of racism in America, as you have apparently tried to insinuate.

AbusesToilets

Overheal wrote: »

Your first link is broken and the second doesn't even mention racism. So your sum statement about Nigerians "doing very well. In racist America. Odd." is not really satisfied with this, it doesn't really paint a picture of Nigerians doing very well in spite of racism. Not that a lone group of black immigrants doing well (Nigerians) demonstrates a lack of racism in America, as you have apparently tried to insinuate.

The first link worked on mobile, so apologies if it's behind a paywall. The success of Black Africans, and other immigrant groups such as South East Asians, would fly in the face of the assertion that the US is a systemically racist country. As BLM would have one believe.

Overheal

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The first link worked on mobile, so apologies if it's behind a paywall. The success of Black Africans, and other immigrant groups such as South East Asians, would fly in the face of the assertion that the US is a systemically racist country. As BLM would have one believe.

The success of most black africans is from the abolition of their slavery. They are descendants of people who were shipped off to the US in slave boats and stripped of their names and identities, familes were broken up and sold piecemeal. Survivors of slavery have no idea who they used to be - whether that be Guinean, Nigerian, Syrian, Swahili, etc.



Systemic racism is easily demonstrated. You seem to be of the misconception that to be systemic that it would apply unfavorable outcomes to everyone based on their race, and that any single person (Barack Obama) or group (Post civil war Nigerians) succeeding where others and other groups have not, proves that there is not systemic racism. That's not a sound basis for argument. That's like saying the Miami Condo didn't collapse because some of it was still standing:

I'd say this building is condemned, you'd say it's fine because your apartment unit is still currently standing.

edit: and yeah I just get the subscribe/pay page for Financial Times on desktop. Cheers for the effort.

Penn

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The first link worked on mobile, so apologies if it's behind a paywall. The success of Black Africans, and other immigrant groups such as South East Asians, would fly in the face of the assertion that the US is a systemically racist country. As BLM would have one believe.

"If you stick a knife in my back 9 inches and pull it out 6 inches, that's not progress. If you pull it all the way out, that's not progress. Progress is healing the wound that the blow made. They haven't pulled the knife out; they won't even admit that it's there." -Malcolm X.

Biko's point is stupid because it ignores all the factors why POCs might move to America. Yes, once they move to America, chances are their lives are much better. Chances are they face far fewer hardships than they did previously. Chances are they have much better opportunities than they did previously. Chances are they're far happier.

That doesn't negate the fact they still might be subject to racism. That doesn't negate the fact that even though they have more opportunities than they did before, that they have less opportunities than other people because of the colour of their skin, or their nationality.

The knife may not be as deep in their back, but biko's argument imo is saying the knife isn't there.

Cordell

Overheal wrote: »

Systemic racism is easily demonstrated.

Yet there is no proof that it's still happening today.