Hacker News Reader

Comment by jjeaff | Hacker News Reader

For myriad of reasons, we know clearly that controlling for no other factors, crime is higher among black populations. So to extrapolate that any one person is more likely to commit a crime because they are black is the definition of racism.

It is not ok to assume that someone might be more likely guilty or more likely to commit a crime based on the color of their skin. Even if you had perfect historical data. It's just not acceptable ethically, morally, whatsoever. And the very idea by some that it is ok, as long as your stereotypes are backed by accurate data, perpetuates racial oppression and creates a self fulfilling prophecy.

View on HN

>For myriad of reasons, we know clearly that controlling for no other factors, crime is higher among black populations. So to extrapolate that any one person is more likely to commit a crime because they are black is the definition of racism.

What about controlling for poverty? That seems to be largely ignored in this discussion, even though it was a central tenent of Dr. Kings mission before he was assassinated.

"We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered"

It's not left out. It's well studied. It's not the only factor, but one of the big ones. The problem is, median black net worth is one-tenth that of median white net-worth. Why is that? You can come up with a bunch of near and intermediate causes, but they will all mostly boil down to systemic racism both past and present.

More specifically, government housing is only available in dense urban environments. As is public transportation and services within walking distance. The black population is much less likely to have any generational wealth (like a home or even an old car passed down to them) obviously due to historic racism. Then pile on the fact that urban areas are more heavily policed and the fact that over-policing seriously hinders economic prosperity, then you have a textbook definition of a vicious cycle.

I agree, at face value it seems obvious that wealth disparities among black americans are attributable to the history of slavery and segregation.

What I'm perplexed about though is this: if systemic racism is the default primary explanation for wealth disparities, how can we explain the even greater wealth disparities of Indian, Asian, and Jewish Americans compared to all other ethnic groups in the US?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_and_religion

> the fact that over-policing seriously hinders economic prosperity

I'm replying to an old discussion, but if you see this comment, do you have a source for this? Thanks.

>So to extrapolate that any one person is more likely to commit a crime because they are black is the definition of racism.

But it's true, a black individual is on average more likely to commit a crime. How can recognizing an obvious fact be racism? Aren't you also racist for recognizing that crime is higher among black populations? It's racist to treat a black individual as if they have committed a crime or treat them differently because of it, not to recognize that a black individual is on average more likely to commit a crime. I don't understand how you would come to that conclusion.

> But it's true, a black individual is on average more likely to commit a crime.

What? Wasn't even sure whether to dignify this comment with a response yet here I am.

I think you missed it the central point of the parent commenter. Take for instance, the fact that men commit the overwhelming majority of violent crime:

* Is it sexist to conclude that someone is a violent criminal just because they're a man? Yes.

* Is it sexist to say that a model predicting that men will commit 90% of violent crime isn't biased, with the reasoning that men on average commit way more violence than women? No.

You missed the "controlling for no other factors" qualifier.

>But it's true, a black individual is on average more likely to commit a crime.

More likely to be convicted of a crime. That's a subtle but very important distinction.

Yes, but we only have evidence to believe that black people do on average commit more crime because they are convicted of more crime. The theory is that blacks commit the same or less crime but only convicted of it because of some type of predatory policing, but that is only a theory and there is no widespread studies or statistics to support this theory. It may well be true, but until there is proof we cannot assume that it is not the case.

I do appreciate the correction and it is an important distinction.

Recognizing the fact isn't racist (although one should qualify those facts with all the many factors not taken into account, like how much more likely a white person is to get away with the same crime). But acting on that data is definitely racist. It is punishing innocent people because other people that have a similar skin color have committed crimes.

>Recognizing the fact isn't racist

Apparently it is, because all the other replies are gobsmacked that I even mentioned this. We're not discussing observations and observable facts anymore, we are creating a world where a certain side is right no matter what and straight statistics are false in they do not support that side. It doesn't even matter that I stated that treating individuals based on their race is immoral, there is no complexity or further discussion, even if that complexity and further discussion could actually be beneficial to solving problems the black community is facing.

>But acting on that data is definitely racist.

Why is it racism? Racism is "unfounded belief based on race". A belief based in data does not sound like either racism or discrimination to me.

Of course assuming someone is guilty because he's statically more likely to commit a crime is wrong. There was a movie about this line of thinking [1] if you're interested, which is the extreme of predictive policing. I still think there are non-discriminatory ways to use predictive policing though.

[1] Minority report by Steven Spielberg in 2002

Reply on news.ycombinator.com