7 ms·

Theoretically, incompetence can be unevenly deployed if you assign incompetent people more predominantly to specific regions or cases.

account-5 3y ago
So theoretically the police chief is racistly deploying non-racist but known incompetent officers in the hopes their incompetence is going to adversely affect those specific regions or cases. That's leaving an awful lot to chance. I can think of more efficient and surefire ways to ensure those areas/cases are racially targeted, you could take Baltimore city as an example. But we're surely getting beyond any reasonable speculation of the information provided in the article?
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  I think they are saying not that it is some grand plan by racism at the highest level, but that it is people at the higher levels not caring about certain people and the justice they get. People hear 'racism' and they think of that speech in the 60s 'segregation now, segregation forever' and firehoses, but it can be much more insidious than someone hating a subsection of people. It can be systemic in the sense that some people are not afforded the things most of us take for granted, like the protection of law, or due process of law, or innocence until guilt is proven, because there j isn't a will do it at the levels that matter. Fictional example: a cop is a problem, he tends to be heavily aggressive in his actions but he is also stupid and unlikeable. People he works with complain and he pissed off some people in the district. District administrator decide it is easier to transfer him to bumfuck, where if there are any complaints they can ignore them because they have no political power or pull, rather than let him mess with people who have the ability to get the media or politicians involved. This isn't even a conscious decision -- people in bumfuck don't complain because they are used to shitty treatment and no recourse, so they don't bother, whereas people like you or I would treat it as a travesty and get worked up and make a huge stink. The fact that it works like this makes it easy and the admin doesn't have to worry about it any more. Wash hands, done deal.
  - account-5 3y ago
    I can fully appreciate what you are saying. I'm not denying racism, (structural, systemic, or otherwise, conscious, unconscious) exists. Or that you fictional example might play out in reality. What I'm saying is that we can speculate until we are blue in the face, but based on the information in that article you can't simply conclude racism.
    - Eisenstein 3y ago
      I get it, but your response regarding incompetence being weaponized to me demonstrated a reductive and unsophisticated understanding of the causes and effects in 'racism'[1]. I get that you were most likely being hyperbolic to make a point, but unfortunately many people who are not personally familiar with such things tend to think in that way. I know that this is frustrating and sometimes can look very much like opportunistic virtue signaling, and many times it can be, but I would caution against immediately dismissing such claims when they are made and defended by parties that otherwise would not have reason to do so. [1] I wish we had a different word that didn't have all the loaded connotations inherent in 'racism' especially with its use in the past as a excuse for slavery, but we don't...
      - account-5 3y ago
        I don't think I advocated anywhere about "weaponizied" incompetence. I believe I was arguing that weaponizied incompetence is far fetched. My whole point engaging here with the many people I have has been to bring it back to what we know from the information we have. I'm more than willing to accept racism is the primary factor if racism was at all obvious from the article or even further information provided. The initial post I was replying to was a blanket statement that the accused person was first nation/aboriginal so the incident was racist. What has followed is ever more far fetched reasons for why it might be racist but no information to say it is so. I was enjoying reading what you'd previously written but changed, about domain knowledge and how domain experts can guess based on the outcome what was likely going on inside the system (EDIT: paraphrasing from memory, so I hope I got it right). I'd never thought about it like that before, very interesting perspective. But even then you'd have to be careful to make bloody sure your assumption, experience based though it is, was actually factually correct before tarring someone with racism. I hope my interactions here don't coming off as me dismissing people concerns/claims. I'm simply trying to take an objective view of the situation as presented. I'm aware that some people consider objectivity a problem in and of itself.

account-5 3y ago

So theoretically the police chief is racistly deploying non-racist but known incompetent officers in the hopes their incompetence is going to adversely affect those specific regions or cases. That's leaving an awful lot to chance. I can think of more efficient and surefire ways to ensure those areas/cases are racially targeted, you could take Baltimore city as an example. But we're surely getting beyond any reasonable speculation of the information provided in the article?

Eisenstein 3y ago
I think they are saying not that it is some grand plan by racism at the highest level, but that it is people at the higher levels not caring about certain people and the justice they get. People hear 'racism' and they think of that speech in the 60s 'segregation now, segregation forever' and firehoses, but it can be much more insidious than someone hating a subsection of people. It can be systemic in the sense that some people are not afforded the things most of us take for granted, like the protection of law, or due process of law, or innocence until guilt is proven, because there j isn't a will do it at the levels that matter. Fictional example: a cop is a problem, he tends to be heavily aggressive in his actions but he is also stupid and unlikeable. People he works with complain and he pissed off some people in the district. District administrator decide it is easier to transfer him to bumfuck, where if there are any complaints they can ignore them because they have no political power or pull, rather than let him mess with people who have the ability to get the media or politicians involved. This isn't even a conscious decision -- people in bumfuck don't complain because they are used to shitty treatment and no recourse, so they don't bother, whereas people like you or I would treat it as a travesty and get worked up and make a huge stink. The fact that it works like this makes it easy and the admin doesn't have to worry about it any more. Wash hands, done deal.
- account-5 3y ago
  I can fully appreciate what you are saying. I'm not denying racism, (structural, systemic, or otherwise, conscious, unconscious) exists. Or that you fictional example might play out in reality. What I'm saying is that we can speculate until we are blue in the face, but based on the information in that article you can't simply conclude racism.
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    I get it, but your response regarding incompetence being weaponized to me demonstrated a reductive and unsophisticated understanding of the causes and effects in 'racism'[1]. I get that you were most likely being hyperbolic to make a point, but unfortunately many people who are not personally familiar with such things tend to think in that way. I know that this is frustrating and sometimes can look very much like opportunistic virtue signaling, and many times it can be, but I would caution against immediately dismissing such claims when they are made and defended by parties that otherwise would not have reason to do so. [1] I wish we had a different word that didn't have all the loaded connotations inherent in 'racism' especially with its use in the past as a excuse for slavery, but we don't...
    - account-5 3y ago
      I don't think I advocated anywhere about "weaponizied" incompetence. I believe I was arguing that weaponizied incompetence is far fetched. My whole point engaging here with the many people I have has been to bring it back to what we know from the information we have. I'm more than willing to accept racism is the primary factor if racism was at all obvious from the article or even further information provided. The initial post I was replying to was a blanket statement that the accused person was first nation/aboriginal so the incident was racist. What has followed is ever more far fetched reasons for why it might be racist but no information to say it is so. I was enjoying reading what you'd previously written but changed, about domain knowledge and how domain experts can guess based on the outcome what was likely going on inside the system (EDIT: paraphrasing from memory, so I hope I got it right). I'd never thought about it like that before, very interesting perspective. But even then you'd have to be careful to make bloody sure your assumption, experience based though it is, was actually factually correct before tarring someone with racism. I hope my interactions here don't coming off as me dismissing people concerns/claims. I'm simply trying to take an objective view of the situation as presented. I'm aware that some people consider objectivity a problem in and of itself.