Senators want answers about algorithms that provide black patients less healthcare

Was the potential for bias considered in these literal life-or-death algorithms?

Read the whole story

 

[rabish12]

Again, not everything is about race.

You assume maliciousness, racism. You could envision a scenario where the design of the algorithm in question was fueled in such a way; but the existence of this algorithm alone is in no way sufficient to demonstrate that; historical anecdotes neither (which I grant, I am sure, there are many).

Further, if the algorithm is rectified to not discriminate against poor people, it would, supposedly (per the article), correct the racial bias initially identified. So, why is race a necessary component of the solution in this particular case?

The first sentence of your post completely sidesteps the one that you're replying to, and the last paragraph has already been thoroughly demonstrated wrong in several posts since, but I think there's a way more important point to make here:

If you think "this has racist results" necessarily implies "this has deliberately racist results", you do not have the maturity or understanding to discuss this topic. Like, at all. You've fundamentally failed to understand what the concerns actually are or what the problem actually is, so there is no point entertaining a discussion about how to address it with you.

Even children understand these things better than you do.

I will grant you that racism does not need to stem from maliciousness; I suppose it could stem from ignorance. That said, this really has no impact on the argument put forward. The word is clearly defined and has a clear connotation. There is a very important part of that definition that you simply choose ignore. A policy that results in greater racial inequality does not imply that the policy is racist. Nor that we are dealing with racism.

"Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another. The term may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity. Modern variants of racism are often based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples."

"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

I see no need to respond to the rest of the post.

So you've made two mistakes here.

First, it doesn't have to stem from ignorance. A facial recognition algorithm that can't detect black faces isn't ignorant - algorithms can't be ignorant, they aren't sentient - but it is racist. That's because when we talk about racism in a broader social context, we aren't just talking about how individual people think or act. We're talking about how society as a whole, and the structures within it, can and often do favor some particular race over another.

In other words, it's a complicated problem and defining it isn't as simple as typing the word into Google and copying the summary text for the first two things that you see. The fact that you think this is adequate is honestly kind of embarrassing.

Not wanting to pick a fight but not knowing the answer, I'm going to ask this in the hopes of learning something: Is there a term for racial bias vs. overt racism? Something that covers institutional or system issues rather than personal feelings?

If there's not a term or phrase, I consider that to be failing of the vocabulary. Because people that benefit from this institutional racism (white people) who are otherwise progressively minded don't want to be called racist. That's potentially alienating the largest, most influential group that could help affect change.

There's no term for it that doesn't include the term "racist" as far as I know, unless you replace "racist" with "racial discrimination". "Institutional racial discrimination" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, and at this point a lot of people see the phrase "racial discrimination" and mentally substitute "racist" anyways.

I'm also not sure that there should be one. Trying to make harm to minorities more palatable to the masses is something that's pretty consistently suggested, but it doesn't really have good results. You need to keep in mind that people are always going to be uncomfortable with the most extreme rhetoric and tactics currently being used, so shifting language to soften its blow on issues like this will tend to both cause fewer people to take it as seriously and lead to a push to go further in that direction. You can actually see a bit of that in MLK Jr's Letter from a Birmingham Jail, where he chastises white moderates for claiming that they agree with his goals but arguing against his tactics... which consisted of non-violent protests.

All that aside, I'm personally really uncomfortable with deciding that we should change how we talk about another group so that their problems are more appealing to us. I've been on the other side of that equation before, and it's demeaning to be told that you need to reel back on pushing for issues that you care about because it makes the "normal" people uncomfortable.

 

[TwoKPowPow]

Again, not everything is about race.

You assume maliciousness, racism. You could envision a scenario where the design of the algorithm in question was fueled in such a way; but the existence of this algorithm alone is in no way sufficient to demonstrate that; historical anecdotes neither (which I grant, I am sure, there are many).

Further, if the algorithm is rectified to not discriminate against poor people, it would, supposedly (per the article), correct the racial bias initially identified. So, why is race a necessary component of the solution in this particular case?

The first sentence of your post completely sidesteps the one that you're replying to, and the last paragraph has already been thoroughly demonstrated wrong in several posts since, but I think there's a way more important point to make here:

If you think "this has racist results" necessarily implies "this has deliberately racist results", you do not have the maturity or understanding to discuss this topic. Like, at all. You've fundamentally failed to understand what the concerns actually are or what the problem actually is, so there is no point entertaining a discussion about how to address it with you.

Even children understand these things better than you do.

I will grant you that racism does not need to stem from maliciousness; I suppose it could stem from ignorance. That said, this really has no impact on the argument put forward. The word is clearly defined and has a clear connotation. There is a very important part of that definition that you simply choose ignore. A policy that results in greater racial inequality does not imply that the policy is racist. Nor that we are dealing with racism.

"Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another. The term may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity. Modern variants of racism are often based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples."

"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

I see no need to respond to the rest of the post.

So you've made two mistakes here.

First, it doesn't have to stem from ignorance. A facial recognition algorithm that can't detect black faces isn't ignorant - algorithms can't be ignorant, they aren't sentient - but it is racist. That's because when we talk about racism in a broader social context, we aren't just talking about how individual people think or act. We're talking about how society as a whole, and the structures within it, can and often do favor some particular race over another.

In other words, it's a complicated problem and defining it isn't as simple as typing the word into Google and copying the summary text for the first two things that you see. The fact that you think this is adequate is honestly kind of embarrassing.

And those structures, by the definition of the word racism, do not have to be racist. Inequality does not imply racism. The current article clearly demonstrates that. Done with you.

 

[rabish12]

Again, not everything is about race.

You assume maliciousness, racism. You could envision a scenario where the design of the algorithm in question was fueled in such a way; but the existence of this algorithm alone is in no way sufficient to demonstrate that; historical anecdotes neither (which I grant, I am sure, there are many).

Further, if the algorithm is rectified to not discriminate against poor people, it would, supposedly (per the article), correct the racial bias initially identified. So, why is race a necessary component of the solution in this particular case?

The first sentence of your post completely sidesteps the one that you're replying to, and the last paragraph has already been thoroughly demonstrated wrong in several posts since, but I think there's a way more important point to make here:

If you think "this has racist results" necessarily implies "this has deliberately racist results", you do not have the maturity or understanding to discuss this topic. Like, at all. You've fundamentally failed to understand what the concerns actually are or what the problem actually is, so there is no point entertaining a discussion about how to address it with you.

Even children understand these things better than you do.

I will grant you that racism does not need to stem from maliciousness; I suppose it could stem from ignorance. That said, this really has no impact on the argument put forward. The word is clearly defined and has a clear connotation. There is a very important part of that definition that you simply choose ignore. A policy that results in greater racial inequality does not imply that the policy is racist. Nor that we are dealing with racism.

"Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another. The term may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity. Modern variants of racism are often based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples."

"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

I see no need to respond to the rest of the post.

So you've made two mistakes here.

First, it doesn't have to stem from ignorance. A facial recognition algorithm that can't detect black faces isn't ignorant - algorithms can't be ignorant, they aren't sentient - but it is racist. That's because when we talk about racism in a broader social context, we aren't just talking about how individual people think or act. We're talking about how society as a whole, and the structures within it, can and often do favor some particular race over another.

In other words, it's a complicated problem and defining it isn't as simple as typing the word into Google and copying the summary text for the first two things that you see. The fact that you think this is adequate is honestly kind of embarrassing.

And those structures, by the definition of the word racism, do not have to be racist. Inequality does not imply racism. The current article clearly demonstrates that. Done with you.

The article doesn't clearly demonstrate that, though. The article demonstrates that associating with health care risk with health care costs demonstrably creates a racial disparity, and it suggests that this could be due to income inequality. Others in this thread have gone through the literature to look at whether or not the racial disparities in health care costs are solely associated with income, and found multiple sources explaining that no, they demonstrably don't. That is, black people will still tend to seek less care on average even when controlling for income inequality. That's not in the article because it's beyond the scope of this study, which doesn't assign a specific reason for the racial discrepancy in health care costs.

You ignored all of the posts explaining this. You ignored all of the sources that were provided to support it. You ignored the person who repeatedly gave you some of the historical context for why some black people are distrustful of the medical profession. You're now ignoring my attempts to explain the broader social context and running off with your hands in your ears, which... well, if nothing else, it's a pretty clear proof that I was right about your maturity.

 

[Wickwick]

Again, not everything is about race.

You assume maliciousness, racism. You could envision a scenario where the design of the algorithm in question was fueled in such a way; but the existence of this algorithm alone is in no way sufficient to demonstrate that; historical anecdotes neither (which I grant, I am sure, there are many).

Further, if the algorithm is rectified to not discriminate against poor people, it would, supposedly (per the article), correct the racial bias initially identified. So, why is race a necessary component of the solution in this particular case?

The first sentence of your post completely sidesteps the one that you're replying to, and the last paragraph has already been thoroughly demonstrated wrong in several posts since, but I think there's a way more important point to make here:

If you think "this has racist results" necessarily implies "this has deliberately racist results", you do not have the maturity or understanding to discuss this topic. Like, at all. You've fundamentally failed to understand what the concerns actually are or what the problem actually is, so there is no point entertaining a discussion about how to address it with you.

Even children understand these things better than you do.

I will grant you that racism does not need to stem from maliciousness; I suppose it could stem from ignorance. That said, this really has no impact on the argument put forward. The word is clearly defined and has a clear connotation. There is a very important part of that definition that you simply choose ignore. A policy that results in greater racial inequality does not imply that the policy is racist. Nor that we are dealing with racism.

"Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another. The term may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity. Modern variants of racism are often based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples."

"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

I see no need to respond to the rest of the post.

So you've made two mistakes here.

First, it doesn't have to stem from ignorance. A facial recognition algorithm that can't detect black faces isn't ignorant - algorithms can't be ignorant, they aren't sentient - but it is racist. That's because when we talk about racism in a broader social context, we aren't just talking about how individual people think or act. We're talking about how society as a whole, and the structures within it, can and often do favor some particular race over another.

In other words, it's a complicated problem and defining it isn't as simple as typing the word into Google and copying the summary text for the first two things that you see. The fact that you think this is adequate is honestly kind of embarrassing.

Not wanting to pick a fight but not knowing the answer, I'm going to ask this in the hopes of learning something: Is there a term for racial bias vs. overt racism? Something that covers institutional or system issues rather than personal feelings?

If there's not a term or phrase, I consider that to be failing of the vocabulary. Because people that benefit from this institutional racism (white people) who are otherwise progressively minded don't want to be called racist. That's potentially alienating the largest, most influential group that could help affect change.

There's no term for it that doesn't include the term "racist" as far as I know, unless you replace "racist" with "racial discrimination". "Institutional racial discrimination" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, and at this point a lot of people see the phrase "racial discrimination" and mentally substitute "racist" anyways.

I'm also not sure that there should be one. Trying to make harm to minorities more palatable to the masses is something that's pretty consistently suggested, but it doesn't really have good results. You need to keep in mind that people are always going to be uncomfortable with the most extreme rhetoric and tactics currently being used, so shifting language to soften its blow on issues like this will tend to both cause fewer people to take it as seriously and lead to a push to go further in that direction. You can actually see a bit of that in MLK Jr's Letter from a Birmingham Jail, where he chastises white moderates for claiming that they agree with his goals but arguing against his tactics... which consisted of non-violent protests.

All that aside, I'm personally really uncomfortable with deciding that we should change how we talk about another group so that their problems are more appealing to us. I've been on the other side of that equation before, and it's demeaning to be told that you need to reel back on pushing for issues that you care about because it makes the "normal" people uncomfortable.

All hot-button issues use language to sway the masses. It's not pro- or anti-abortion. It's pro-life and pro-choice with the obvious anti- added to the opposite group. Choosing the right "catch phrase" (for lack of a better term) is an incredibly important consideration in any political discourse. "Racial bias" seems like a more effective term than "racism" or "discrimmination."

 

[TwoKPowPow]

Again, not everything is about race.

You assume maliciousness, racism. You could envision a scenario where the design of the algorithm in question was fueled in such a way; but the existence of this algorithm alone is in no way sufficient to demonstrate that; historical anecdotes neither (which I grant, I am sure, there are many).

Further, if the algorithm is rectified to not discriminate against poor people, it would, supposedly (per the article), correct the racial bias initially identified. So, why is race a necessary component of the solution in this particular case?

The first sentence of your post completely sidesteps the one that you're replying to, and the last paragraph has already been thoroughly demonstrated wrong in several posts since, but I think there's a way more important point to make here:

If you think "this has racist results" necessarily implies "this has deliberately racist results", you do not have the maturity or understanding to discuss this topic. Like, at all. You've fundamentally failed to understand what the concerns actually are or what the problem actually is, so there is no point entertaining a discussion about how to address it with you.

Even children understand these things better than you do.

I will grant you that racism does not need to stem from maliciousness; I suppose it could stem from ignorance. That said, this really has no impact on the argument put forward. The word is clearly defined and has a clear connotation. There is a very important part of that definition that you simply choose ignore. A policy that results in greater racial inequality does not imply that the policy is racist. Nor that we are dealing with racism.

"Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another. The term may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity. Modern variants of racism are often based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples."

"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

I see no need to respond to the rest of the post.

So you've made two mistakes here.

First, it doesn't have to stem from ignorance. A facial recognition algorithm that can't detect black faces isn't ignorant - algorithms can't be ignorant, they aren't sentient - but it is racist. That's because when we talk about racism in a broader social context, we aren't just talking about how individual people think or act. We're talking about how society as a whole, and the structures within it, can and often do favor some particular race over another.

In other words, it's a complicated problem and defining it isn't as simple as typing the word into Google and copying the summary text for the first two things that you see. The fact that you think this is adequate is honestly kind of embarrassing.

And those structures, by the definition of the word racism, do not have to be racist. Inequality does not imply racism. The current article clearly demonstrates that. Done with you.

The article doesn't clearly demonstrate that, though. The article demonstrates that associating with health care risk with health care costs demonstrably creates a racial disparity, and it suggests that this could be due to income inequality. Others in this thread have gone through the literature to look at whether or not the racial disparities in health care costs are solely associated with income, and found multiple sources explaining that no, they demonstrably don't. That is, black people will still tend to seek less care on average even when controlling for income inequality. That's not in the article because it's beyond the scope of this study, which doesn't assign a specific reason for the racial discrepancy in health care costs.

You ignored all of the posts explaining this. You ignored all of the sources that were provided to support it. You ignored the person who repeatedly gave you some of the historical context for why some black people are distrustful of the medical profession. You're now ignoring my attempts to explain the broader social context and running off with your hands in your ears, which... well, if nothing else, it's a pretty clear proof that I was right about your maturity.

My comments specifically addressed this article. I never claimed that disparities in health care access were entirely explained by wealth. In fact, I didn't make any claims related to this, I just repeated what was stated in this article.

The sole claim I made, that pertains to the discussion we are having, is that inequality does not imply racism. If we lived in a world where black and white had the same wealth, would the algorithm in question be racist? Would you still object to it? Is the NBA racist?

 

[rabish12]

My comments specifically addressed this article. I never claimed that disparities in health care access were entirely explained by wealth. In fact, I didn't make any claims related to this, I just repeated what was stated in this article.

The sole claim I made, that pertains to the discussion we are having, is that inequality does not imply racism. If we lived in a world where black and white had the same wealth, would the algorithm in question be racist? Would you still object to it? Is the NBA racist?

Done with you.

Guess you were lying, huh?

 

[TwoKPowPow]

My comments specifically addressed this article. I never claimed that disparities in health care access were entirely explained by wealth. In fact, I didn't make any claims related to this, I just repeated what was stated in this article.

The sole claim I made, that pertains to the discussion we are having, is that inequality does not imply racism. If we lived in a world where black and white had the same wealth, would the algorithm in question be racist? Would you still object to it? Is the NBA racist?

Done with you.

Guess you were lying, huh?

Yes, you got me. You win this thread.

 

[rabish12]

All hot-button issues use language to sway the masses. It's not pro- or anti-abortion. It's pro-life and pro-choice with the obvious anti- added to the opposite group. Choosing the right "catch phrase" (for lack of a better term) is an incredibly important consideration in any political discourse. "Racial bias" seems like a more effective term than "racism" or "discrimmination."

Your example kind of supports my argument here. The two sides of the abortion debate didn't choose their terms so that people tacitly endorsing their issues would feel less uncomfortable. If you're okay with abortions and someone tells you that you're therefore not "pro-life", it's meant to be a gut punch - it's meant to make you feel like you're tacitly endorsing murder. If you're okay with laws limiting abortion access and someone tells you that you're therefore not "pro-choice", it's meant to be a gut punch - it's meant to feel like you're tacitly endorsing authoritarianism and oppression.

As for the specific term "racial bias"... well, I can tell you from experience that it doesn't work the way that you think it would. It's way too obviously synonymous with racism, and people invariably read it that way. It wouldn't be effective at softening the blow, and I'm pretty confident that anything that would would also make people less likely to care.

 

[rabish12]

My comments specifically addressed this article. I never claimed that disparities in health care access were entirely explained by wealth. In fact, I didn't make any claims related to this, I just repeated what was stated in this article.

The sole claim I made, that pertains to the discussion we are having, is that inequality does not imply racism. If we lived in a world where black and white had the same wealth, would the algorithm in question be racist? Would you still object to it? Is the NBA racist?

Done with you.

Guess you were lying, huh?

Yes, you got me. You win this thread.

I don't care about winning. I care about discussion. I care about having an actual, information-based back and forth so that I can learn. You care about winning, which is why you've been consistently ignoring posts, refusing to respond to chunks of posts that you do reply to, insisting that we focus only on a single sentence of the article when the broader sources don't support your arguments, and outright declaring that you're "done" but then still coming back to get the last word in.

Your only concern here is winning an argument, and when we're talking about issues that can have a serious impact on peoples health and lives that's fucking disgusting. I'm done with you at this point, and unlike your immature bullshit declaration I'm going to stick to it. Enjoy having that precious last word, you feckless child.

 

[Porter Doran]

"Patients with less money to spend on medical care were seen by the software as needing to spend less on medical care, and so their risk scores ended up not matching their actual medical needs or outcomes."

So making this about race was as usual absolute divisive idiocity. IF this is the reason then poor white people would be deprived in exactly the same way. Stupid inflaming inquiry then. This identity bullshit has to die. And also let's make sure poor people get as good care as rich people

Sigh. Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

Blacks are more likely than whites to be poor, so if you look at the populations as a whole, the algorithm absolutely does discriminate against blacks. Racial disparities exist and unless someone designing an algorithm like this understands that, you get the results that were actually found.

Probably a more relevant question is why do you find it so threatening when people find racial disparities? It isn't like this is really anything new.

"Blacks are more likely than whites to be poor," yes, but let's not interpret that inaccurately. In total numbers, more whites are poor than blacks, and there is greater poverty in rural than urban areas. For example, see one article from PBS: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/six ... an-america

It's not wrong or entirely counter-factual for the senators to frame this issue in terms of race. However, poor whites are also impacted by these healthcare policies, and it's possible the senators could find broader support for and understanding of their mission if they included discussion of impacted whites.

 

[DarthSlack]

"Patients with less money to spend on medical care were seen by the software as needing to spend less on medical care, and so their risk scores ended up not matching their actual medical needs or outcomes."

So making this about race was as usual absolute divisive idiocity. IF this is the reason then poor white people would be deprived in exactly the same way. Stupid inflaming inquiry then. This identity bullshit has to die. And also let's make sure poor people get as good care as rich people

Sigh. Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

Blacks are more likely than whites to be poor, so if you look at the populations as a whole, the algorithm absolutely does discriminate against blacks. Racial disparities exist and unless someone designing an algorithm like this understands that, you get the results that were actually found.

Probably a more relevant question is why do you find it so threatening when people find racial disparities? It isn't like this is really anything new.

"Blacks are more likely than whites to be poor," yes, but let's not interpret that inaccurately. In total numbers, more whites are poor than blacks, and there is greater poverty in rural than urban areas. For example, see one article from PBS: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/six ... an-america

It's not wrong or entirely counter-factual for the senators to frame this issue in terms of race. However, poor whites are also impacted by these healthcare policies, and it's possible the senators could find broader support for and understanding of their mission if they included discussion of impacted whites.

The senators aren't framing the issue in terms of race, that's what the research shows. A few posts back I included a quote that the study was controlled for income among other factors and blacks still came out worse.

In other words if you have one black person and one white person that are equal in all other respects, the algorithm will still discriminate against the black person.

 

[Porter Doran]

"Patients with less money to spend on medical care were seen by the software as needing to spend less on medical care, and so their risk scores ended up not matching their actual medical needs or outcomes."

So making this about race was as usual absolute divisive idiocity. IF this is the reason then poor white people would be deprived in exactly the same way. Stupid inflaming inquiry then. This identity bullshit has to die. And also let's make sure poor people get as good care as rich people

Sigh. Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

Blacks are more likely than whites to be poor, so if you look at the populations as a whole, the algorithm absolutely does discriminate against blacks. Racial disparities exist and unless someone designing an algorithm like this understands that, you get the results that were actually found.

Probably a more relevant question is why do you find it so threatening when people find racial disparities? It isn't like this is really anything new.

"Blacks are more likely than whites to be poor," yes, but let's not interpret that inaccurately. In total numbers, more whites are poor than blacks, and there is greater poverty in rural than urban areas. For example, see one article from PBS: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/six ... an-america

It's not wrong or entirely counter-factual for the senators to frame this issue in terms of race. However, poor whites are also impacted by these healthcare policies, and it's possible the senators could find broader support for and understanding of their mission if they included discussion of impacted whites.

The senators aren't framing the issue in terms of race, that's what the research shows. A few posts back I included a quote that the study was controlled for income among other factors and blacks still came out worse.

In other words if you have one black person and one white person that are equal in all other respects, the algorithm will still discriminate against the black person.

Interesting. No, I hadn't seen that post. There seems to be some confusion in the research as to how this is happening. Personally, I think returning more autonomy to physicians would be a generally good idea, but I have no evidence it would help address this particular issue. I think the current patterns of control in the healthcare industry are misguided (or even ill-motivated) and affect patients deleteriously, and I welcome any studies and probes that keep these patterns under scrutiny. Health is very important.

 

[shelbystripes]

Again, not everything is about race.

You assume maliciousness, racism. You could envision a scenario where the design of the algorithm in question was fueled in such a way; but the existence of this algorithm alone is in no way sufficient to demonstrate that; historical anecdotes neither (which I grant, I am sure, there are many).

Further, if the algorithm is rectified to not discriminate against poor people, it would, supposedly (per the article), correct the racial bias initially identified. So, why is race a necessary component of the solution in this particular case?

The first sentence of your post completely sidesteps the one that you're replying to, and the last paragraph has already been thoroughly demonstrated wrong in several posts since, but I think there's a way more important point to make here:

If you think "this has racist results" necessarily implies "this has deliberately racist results", you do not have the maturity or understanding to discuss this topic. Like, at all. You've fundamentally failed to understand what the concerns actually are or what the problem actually is, so there is no point entertaining a discussion about how to address it with you.

Even children understand these things better than you do.

I will grant you that racism does not need to stem from maliciousness; I suppose it could stem from ignorance. That said, this really has no impact on the argument put forward. The word is clearly defined and has a clear connotation. There is a very important part of that definition that you simply choose ignore. A policy that results in greater racial inequality does not imply that the policy is racist. Nor that we are dealing with racism.

"Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another. The term may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity. Modern variants of racism are often based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples."

"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

I see no need to respond to the rest of the post.

So you've made two mistakes here.

First, it doesn't have to stem from ignorance. A facial recognition algorithm that can't detect black faces isn't ignorant - algorithms can't be ignorant, they aren't sentient - but it is racist. That's because when we talk about racism in a broader social context, we aren't just talking about how individual people think or act. We're talking about how society as a whole, and the structures within it, can and often do favor some particular race over another.

In other words, it's a complicated problem and defining it isn't as simple as typing the word into Google and copying the summary text for the first two things that you see. The fact that you think this is adequate is honestly kind of embarrassing.

Not wanting to pick a fight but not knowing the answer, I'm going to ask this in the hopes of learning something: Is there a term for racial bias vs. overt racism? Something that covers institutional or system issues rather than personal feelings?

If there's not a term or phrase, I consider that to be failing of the vocabulary. Because people that benefit from this institutional racism (white people) who are otherwise progressively minded don't want to be called racist. That's potentially alienating the largest, most influential group that could help affect change.

The terms for institutional or systemic racism are “institutional racism” or, alternately, “systemic racism.”

 

[shelbystripes]

The sole claim I made, that pertains to the discussion we are having, is that inequality does not imply racism. If we lived in a world where black and white had the same wealth, would the algorithm in question be racist? Would you still object to it?

It depends on the context, doesn’t it? I mean, inequality can certainly suggest the presence of systemic or institutional racism, whether deliberate or unintentional. Then you need to look at the context of that inequality and see if it’s possible to explain it in a manner that doesn’t involve systemic levels of racism. If you want to have an honest discussion about a particular context, then...

Is the NBA racist?

...oh. Welp. Nevermind.

 

[rabish12]

Again, not everything is about race.

You assume maliciousness, racism. You could envision a scenario where the design of the algorithm in question was fueled in such a way; but the existence of this algorithm alone is in no way sufficient to demonstrate that; historical anecdotes neither (which I grant, I am sure, there are many).

Further, if the algorithm is rectified to not discriminate against poor people, it would, supposedly (per the article), correct the racial bias initially identified. So, why is race a necessary component of the solution in this particular case?

The first sentence of your post completely sidesteps the one that you're replying to, and the last paragraph has already been thoroughly demonstrated wrong in several posts since, but I think there's a way more important point to make here:

If you think "this has racist results" necessarily implies "this has deliberately racist results", you do not have the maturity or understanding to discuss this topic. Like, at all. You've fundamentally failed to understand what the concerns actually are or what the problem actually is, so there is no point entertaining a discussion about how to address it with you.

Even children understand these things better than you do.

I will grant you that racism does not need to stem from maliciousness; I suppose it could stem from ignorance. That said, this really has no impact on the argument put forward. The word is clearly defined and has a clear connotation. There is a very important part of that definition that you simply choose ignore. A policy that results in greater racial inequality does not imply that the policy is racist. Nor that we are dealing with racism.

"Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another. The term may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity. Modern variants of racism are often based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples."

"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

I see no need to respond to the rest of the post.

So you've made two mistakes here.

First, it doesn't have to stem from ignorance. A facial recognition algorithm that can't detect black faces isn't ignorant - algorithms can't be ignorant, they aren't sentient - but it is racist. That's because when we talk about racism in a broader social context, we aren't just talking about how individual people think or act. We're talking about how society as a whole, and the structures within it, can and often do favor some particular race over another.

In other words, it's a complicated problem and defining it isn't as simple as typing the word into Google and copying the summary text for the first two things that you see. The fact that you think this is adequate is honestly kind of embarrassing.

Not wanting to pick a fight but not knowing the answer, I'm going to ask this in the hopes of learning something: Is there a term for racial bias vs. overt racism? Something that covers institutional or system issues rather than personal feelings?

If there's not a term or phrase, I consider that to be failing of the vocabulary. Because people that benefit from this institutional racism (white people) who are otherwise progressively minded don't want to be called racist. That's potentially alienating the largest, most influential group that could help affect change.

The terms for institutional or systemic racism are “institutional racism” or, alternately, “systemic racism.”

To be fair, his argument's that those terms are a bit too sharp and too likely to offend white moderates and progressives.

To be even more fair, having someone who's not a member of an oppressed group say "I agree with this whole 'progress' thing but couldn't you tone it down a bit?" is uh... yeah.

 

[shelbystripes]

Not wanting to pick a fight but not knowing the answer, I'm going to ask this in the hopes of learning something: Is there a term for racial bias vs. overt racism? Something that covers institutional or system issues rather than personal feelings?

If there's not a term or phrase, I consider that to be failing of the vocabulary. Because people that benefit from this institutional racism (white people) who are otherwise progressively minded don't want to be called racist. That's potentially alienating the largest, most influential group that could help affect change.

The terms for institutional or systemic racism are “institutional racism” or, alternately, “systemic racism.”

To be fair, his argument's that those terms are a bit too sharp and too likely to offend white moderates and progressives.

To be even more fair, having someone who's not a member of an oppressed group say "I agree with this whole 'progress' thing but couldn't you tone it down a bit?" is uh... yeah.

Your point #2 is why I bluntly gave an answer that is valid and does not pander to point #1.

 

[Wickwick]

To be fair, his argument's that those terms are a bit too sharp and too likely to offend white moderates and progressives.

To be even more fair, having someone who's not a member of an oppressed group say "I agree with this whole 'progress' thing but couldn't you tone it down a bit?" is uh... yeah.

It doesn't offend me personally when someone points out how I benefit from institutionalized racism. But then again, I'm a pretty progressively-minded, over-educated individual. I am, however, at least passingly familiar with how political gains can be achieved and many of the necessary things are not pretty - from any point of view. So, I asked if there was a way with which to engage a group in a more productive manner than calling them racist. Apparently there's not. That's fine by me. As I said, I'm well aware of the advantages with which I started.

 

[TwoKPowPow]

The sole claim I made, that pertains to the discussion we are having, is that inequality does not imply racism. If we lived in a world where black and white had the same wealth, would the algorithm in question be racist? Would you still object to it?

It depends on the context, doesn’t it? I mean, inequality can certainly suggest the presence of systemic or institutional racism, whether deliberate or unintentional. Then you need to look at the context of that inequality and see if it’s possible to explain it in a manner that doesn’t involve systemic levels of racism. If you want to have an honest discussion about a particular context, then....

Which is exactly what I said. Inequality does not imply racism. Glad you to hear you agree.

 

[rabish12]

To be fair, his argument's that those terms are a bit too sharp and too likely to offend white moderates and progressives.

To be even more fair, having someone who's not a member of an oppressed group say "I agree with this whole 'progress' thing but couldn't you tone it down a bit?" is uh... yeah.

It doesn't offend me personally when someone points out how I benefit from institutionalized racism. But then again, I'm a pretty progressively-minded, over-educated individual. I am, however, at least passingly familiar with how political gains can be achieved and many of the necessary things are not pretty - from any point of view. So, I asked if there was a way with which to engage a group in a more productive manner than calling them racist. Apparently there's not. That's fine by me. As I said, I'm well aware of the advantages with which I started.

Like I've said before, this issue isn't that simple.

There are cases where there are more productive things that you can do than calling someone a racist. As an example, the people who made this system just made an assumption that, when applied in this specific way, can lead to racist results. Calling them racists because of that would be entirely counterproductive because... well, they probably aren't, or at least not in a way that influenced the system that they built. They were just ignorant of the broader social details here, and being ignorant is nothing to be ashamed of so long as you're willing to learn.

That said, if someone is uncomfortable with calling racist systems racist because they're fundamentally uncomfortable with the word itself? That's when it starts getting extremely hard for me to justify. Especially given how often "that's not really racist!" is used to defend very unambiguously racist behavior and actions, agreeing not to call a spade a spade here is a really problematic thing to do.

 

[s73v3r]

Sigh. Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

Blacks are more likely than whites to be poor, so if you look at the populations as a whole, the algorithm absolutely does discriminate against blacks. Racial disparities exist and unless someone designing an algorithm like this understands that, you get the results that were actually found.

Probably a more relevant question is why do you find it so threatening when people find racial disparities? It isn't like this is really anything new.

We know black people are more likely to be poor. And we know this algorithm discriminates against poor people. Bias explained. There is no need to re-ash this as a racial issue. In fact, it could only serve as a distraction. The solution, in this case, is to stop discriminating against poor people, not just black poor people.

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

You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger". By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this", is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger". So, any way you look at it, race is coming on the backbone

It's not always about race. See, I can have an opinion too.

He didn't give you an opinion. He gave you quote from a Republican strategist explicitly stating that "it's not about race, it's about X" is a strategy that was specifically used by the party to justify policies that really target black people. Yes, some of those policies hit white people too, but they end up hitting black people worse and that's a significant part of where they come from and why they're pushed for.

That's really important as historical context, and it makes it pretty clear that dismissing the racial component of something that disproportionately affects a specific race is irresponsible at best. These correlations and their end results are important, and they need to be considered.

Again, not everything is about race.

You assume maliciousness, racism.

Literally no one assumed maliciousness. That doesn't stop this from being flat out racism.

 

[shonthom]

The title should read "Senators want answers about algorithms that provide POOR patients less healthcare".

 

[shelbystripes]

We know black people are more likely to be poor. And we know this algorithm discriminates against poor people. Bias explained. There is no need to re-ash this as a racial issue. In fact, it could only serve as a distraction. The solution, in this case, is to stop discriminating against poor people, not just black poor people.

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

You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger". By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this", is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger". So, any way you look at it, race is coming on the backbone

It's not always about race. See, I can have an opinion too.

He didn't give you an opinion. He gave you quote from a Republican strategist explicitly stating that "it's not about race, it's about X" is a strategy that was specifically used by the party to justify policies that really target black people. Yes, some of those policies hit white people too, but they end up hitting black people worse and that's a significant part of where they come from and why they're pushed for.

That's really important as historical context, and it makes it pretty clear that dismissing the racial component of something that disproportionately affects a specific race is irresponsible at best. These correlations and their end results are important, and they need to be considered.

Again, not everything is about race.

You assume maliciousness, racism.

Literally no one assumed maliciousness. That doesn't stop this from being flat out racism.

In my personal experience, the idea that racism somehow requires proof of malice is often raised by racists in an attempt to limit and choke the ability of anti-racists to call out and identify racism as racism.

Just an observation.

 

[shelbystripes]

The sole claim I made, that pertains to the discussion we are having, is that inequality does not imply racism. If we lived in a world where black and white had the same wealth, would the algorithm in question be racist? Would you still object to it?

It depends on the context, doesn’t it? I mean, inequality can certainly suggest the presence of systemic or institutional racism, whether deliberate or unintentional. Then you need to look at the context of that inequality and see if it’s possible to explain it in a manner that doesn’t involve systemic levels of racism. If you want to have an honest discussion about a particular context, then....

Which is exactly what I said. Inequality does not imply racism. Glad you to hear you agree.

So, you lack even basic reading comprehension skills. Got it.

 

[rabish12]

In my personal experience, the idea that racism somehow requires proof of malice is often raised by racists in an attempt to limit and choke the ability of anti-racists to call out and identify racism as racism.

Just an observation.

I mean, I'll go ahead and flat out state that that's what's happening here. It's kind of telling when his response to sources showing that race is a component here is "I was just talking about the article", only to go back to definitively arguing against the idea that race is a component less than a page later.

 

[s73v3r]

To be fair, his argument's that those terms are a bit too sharp and too likely to offend white moderates and progressives.

To be even more fair, having someone who's not a member of an oppressed group say "I agree with this whole 'progress' thing but couldn't you tone it down a bit?" is uh... yeah.

It doesn't offend me personally when someone points out how I benefit from institutionalized racism. But then again, I'm a pretty progressively-minded, over-educated individual. I am, however, at least passingly familiar with how political gains can be achieved and many of the necessary things are not pretty - from any point of view. So, I asked if there was a way with which to engage a group in a more productive manner than calling them racist. Apparently there's not. That's fine by me. As I said, I'm well aware of the advantages with which I started.

See, here's the problem: you assume that, by saying something, like the subject of this article, is racist, that we must be saying that someone behind it is racist. It doesn't. Something like an algorithm can have racist outcomes without the people implementing it having malicious racist intention.

 

[DarthSlack]

The title should read "Senators want answers about algorithms that provide POOR patients less healthcare".

And for the third time, THIS IS WRONG.

The paper is very clear that even when adjusted for other factors, blacks still get the short end of the stick from this algorithm. A poor white person gets better treatment than a poor black person.

 

[DarthSlack]

"Patients with less money to spend on medical care were seen by the software as needing to spend less on medical care, and so their risk scores ended up not matching their actual medical needs or outcomes."

So making this about race was as usual absolute divisive idiocity. IF this is the reason then poor white people would be deprived in exactly the same way. Stupid inflaming inquiry then. This identity bullshit has to die. And also let's make sure poor people get as good care as rich people

Sigh. Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

Blacks are more likely than whites to be poor, so if you look at the populations as a whole, the algorithm absolutely does discriminate against blacks. Racial disparities exist and unless someone designing an algorithm like this understands that, you get the results that were actually found.

Probably a more relevant question is why do you find it so threatening when people find racial disparities? It isn't like this is really anything new.

"Blacks are more likely than whites to be poor," yes, but let's not interpret that inaccurately. In total numbers, more whites are poor than blacks, and there is greater poverty in rural than urban areas. For example, see one article from PBS: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/six ... an-america

It's not wrong or entirely counter-factual for the senators to frame this issue in terms of race. However, poor whites are also impacted by these healthcare policies, and it's possible the senators could find broader support for and understanding of their mission if they included discussion of impacted whites.

The senators aren't framing the issue in terms of race, that's what the research shows. A few posts back I included a quote that the study was controlled for income among other factors and blacks still came out worse.

In other words if you have one black person and one white person that are equal in all other respects, the algorithm will still discriminate against the black person.

Interesting. No, I hadn't seen that post. There seems to be some confusion in the research as to how this is happening. Personally, I think returning more autonomy to physicians would be a generally good idea, but I have no evidence it would help address this particular issue. I think the current patterns of control in the healthcare industry are misguided (or even ill-motivated) and affect patients deleteriously, and I welcome any studies and probes that keep these patterns under scrutiny. Health is very important.

Actually, it's pretty clear why this is happening because it's happening all over the place, not just in medicine. Algorithms require training data sets and apparently most training data sets include racial biases that the developers either don't notice or just ignore. It actually isn't all that surprising given the endemic racism in the US. What is surprising is that nobody is thinking to look for it in advance.

And no, I don't think returning more autonomy to physicians is the answer. Blacks have historically gotten much poorer healthcare in part because of physician autonomy. I honestly don't know what the answer is but returning to a known broken system clearly isn't it.

 

[memotro]

JHowever, due to a variety of socioeconomic factors, black patients sought care less and thus accrued less cost, despite having the same base health problems.

It's almost like software isn't perfect, but if you go screaming **RACISM** the moment a machine learning algo doesn't work out for you, we're not going to progress as a society.

At some point, reactions to software bugs like this jumping straight to racism is neither progressive or educated.

JFC.

 

[s73v3r]

JHowever, due to a variety of socioeconomic factors, black patients sought care less and thus accrued less cost, despite having the same base health problems.

It's almost like software isn't perfect, but if you go screaming **RACISM** the moment a machine learning algo doesn't work out for you, we're not going to progress as a society.

At some point, reactions to software bugs like this jumping straight to racism is neither progressive or educated.

JFC.

Jumping to racism, when something racist happens, is not progressive or educated?

 

[cerberusTI]

JHowever, due to a variety of socioeconomic factors, black patients sought care less and thus accrued less cost, despite having the same base health problems.

It's almost like software isn't perfect, but if you go screaming **RACISM** the moment a machine learning algo doesn't work out for you, we're not going to progress as a society.

At some point, reactions to software bugs like this jumping straight to racism is neither progressive or educated.

JFC.

I have rejected software with a safety impact simply because the programmer could not explain how it worked well, and it was too messy for me to think code review would find everything. My solution in that case is to have it rewritten such that we do know it works.

Even where a worst case is some missing fingers I expect the safety features to be auditable.

They do have some responsibility for their product, and if it is assigning the wrong risk scores that is very much their problem. There is no pass on this because it uses some new technology and you do not know how it works. It is your job to either know that, or otherwise be sure it will not make mistakes of this nature.

Nobody really cares how your algorithm works if you are classifying cute cat pictures or something similarly benign. If you choose to produce a product which can cause harm, you have some responsibilities.

I do not know what their algorithms look like, but these senators are not going to find it an acceptable answer that they do not know either.

 

[TwoKPowPow]

The sole claim I made, that pertains to the discussion we are having, is that inequality does not imply racism. If we lived in a world where black and white had the same wealth, would the algorithm in question be racist? Would you still object to it?

It depends on the context, doesn’t it? I mean, inequality can certainly suggest the presence of systemic or institutional racism, whether deliberate or unintentional. Then you need to look at the context of that inequality and see if it’s possible to explain it in a manner that doesn’t involve systemic levels of racism. If you want to have an honest discussion about a particular context, then....

Which is exactly what I said. Inequality does not imply racism. Glad you to hear you agree.

So, you lack even basic reading comprehension skills. Got it.

From this thread and past threads, it is obvious you are completely ignorant of any logical constructs. You would benefit greatly, assuming you have the ability to grasp the material, from an introductory class in logic.

Here: https://online.stanford.edu/courses/soh ... -and-logic

 

[Deleted member 388703]

The sole claim I made, that pertains to the discussion we are having, is that inequality does not imply racism. If we lived in a world where black and white had the same wealth, would the algorithm in question be racist? Would you still object to it?

It depends on the context, doesn’t it? I mean, inequality can certainly suggest the presence of systemic or institutional racism, whether deliberate or unintentional. Then you need to look at the context of that inequality and see if it’s possible to explain it in a manner that doesn’t involve systemic levels of racism. If you want to have an honest discussion about a particular context, then....

Which is exactly what I said. Inequality does not imply racism. Glad you to hear you agree.

So, you lack even basic reading comprehension skills. Got it.

From this thread and past threads, it is obvious you are completely ignorant of any logical constructs. You would benefit greatly, assuming you have the ability to grasp the material, from an introductory class in logic.

Here: https://online.stanford.edu/courses/soh ... -and-logic

Projection. Classic.

 

[shelbystripes]

The sole claim I made, that pertains to the discussion we are having, is that inequality does not imply racism. If we lived in a world where black and white had the same wealth, would the algorithm in question be racist? Would you still object to it?

It depends on the context, doesn’t it? I mean, inequality can certainly suggest the presence of systemic or institutional racism, whether deliberate or unintentional. Then you need to look at the context of that inequality and see if it’s possible to explain it in a manner that doesn’t involve systemic levels of racism. If you want to have an honest discussion about a particular context, then....

Which is exactly what I said. Inequality does not imply racism. Glad you to hear you agree.

So, you lack even basic reading comprehension skills. Got it.

From this thread and past threads, it is obvious you are completely ignorant of any logical constructs. You would benefit greatly, assuming you have the ability to grasp the material, from an introductory class in logic.

Lol, dude, just ... lol.

 

[Wickwick]

Not wanting to pick a fight but not knowing the answer, I'm going to ask this in the hopes of learning something: Is there a term for racial bias vs. overt racism? Something that covers institutional or system issues rather than personal feelings?

If there's not a term or phrase, I consider that to be failing of the vocabulary. Because people that benefit from this institutional racism (white people) who are otherwise progressively minded don't want to be called racist. That's potentially alienating the largest, most influential group that could help affect change.

The terms for institutional or systemic racism are “institutional racism” or, alternately, “systemic racism.”

To be fair, his argument's that those terms are a bit too sharp and too likely to offend white moderates and progressives.

To be even more fair, having someone who's not a member of an oppressed group say "I agree with this whole 'progress' thing but couldn't you tone it down a bit?" is uh... yeah.

Your point #2 is why I bluntly gave an answer that is valid and does not pander to point #1.

Apologies for necro'ing a thread, but I was always quite dissatisfied with this answer. It always seemed a version of cutting off one's nose to spite's one's face. And since that time, Isabel Wilkerson has published her novel Caste which argues that America is subject to a de facto caste system. I feel the word "caste" is one that simultaneously conveys the unjustness of the system while not turning off white people with the inherent blame associated with the word "racism." It may prove to be the more politically-enabling phrase I was looking for in my post above.

 

[shelbystripes]

Not wanting to pick a fight but not knowing the answer, I'm going to ask this in the hopes of learning something: Is there a term for racial bias vs. overt racism? Something that covers institutional or system issues rather than personal feelings?

If there's not a term or phrase, I consider that to be failing of the vocabulary. Because people that benefit from this institutional racism (white people) who are otherwise progressively minded don't want to be called racist. That's potentially alienating the largest, most influential group that could help affect change.

The terms for institutional or systemic racism are “institutional racism” or, alternately, “systemic racism.”

To be fair, his argument's that those terms are a bit too sharp and too likely to offend white moderates and progressives.

To be even more fair, having someone who's not a member of an oppressed group say "I agree with this whole 'progress' thing but couldn't you tone it down a bit?" is uh... yeah.

Your point #2 is why I bluntly gave an answer that is valid and does not pander to point #1.

Apologies for necro'ing a thread, but I was always quite dissatisfied with this answer. It always seemed a version of cutting off one's nose to spite's one's face. And since that time, Isabel Wilkerson has published her novel Caste which argues that America is subject to a de facto caste system. I feel the word "caste" is one that simultaneously conveys the unjustness of the system while not turning off white people with the inherent blame associated with the word "racism." It may prove to be the more politically-enabling phrase I was looking for in my post above.

...wait, you think “caste” is less offensive terminology, and that somehow makes it superior?

I mean, you’re the person still butthurt after, um... 8 months, from being told the correct word for racism is “racism”. So I guess I’m not surprised by the sheer cluelessness.

Fuck your search for “political enablement.” Learn to explain what racism is to white people and to tell them they have to live with being offended sometimes, instead of trying to dance around it so as not to hurt their precious snowflake feelings. For fuck’s sake.

 

[cerberusTI]

Not wanting to pick a fight but not knowing the answer, I'm going to ask this in the hopes of learning something: Is there a term for racial bias vs. overt racism? Something that covers institutional or system issues rather than personal feelings?

If there's not a term or phrase, I consider that to be failing of the vocabulary. Because people that benefit from this institutional racism (white people) who are otherwise progressively minded don't want to be called racist. That's potentially alienating the largest, most influential group that could help affect change.

The terms for institutional or systemic racism are “institutional racism” or, alternately, “systemic racism.”

To be fair, his argument's that those terms are a bit too sharp and too likely to offend white moderates and progressives.

To be even more fair, having someone who's not a member of an oppressed group say "I agree with this whole 'progress' thing but couldn't you tone it down a bit?" is uh... yeah.

Your point #2 is why I bluntly gave an answer that is valid and does not pander to point #1.

Apologies for necro'ing a thread, but I was always quite dissatisfied with this answer. It always seemed a version of cutting off one's nose to spite's one's face. And since that time, Isabel Wilkerson has published her novel Caste which argues that America is subject to a de facto caste system. I feel the word "caste" is one that simultaneously conveys the unjustness of the system while not turning off white people with the inherent blame associated with the word "racism." It may prove to be the more politically-enabling phrase I was looking for in my post above.

...wait, you think “caste” is less offensive terminology, and that somehow makes it superior?

I mean, you’re the person still butthurt after, um... 8 months, from being told the correct word for racism is “racism”. So I guess I’m not surprised by the sheer cluelessness.

Fuck your search for “political enablement.” Learn to explain what racism is to white people and to tell them they have to live with being offended sometimes, instead of trying to dance around it so as not to hurt their precious snowflake feelings. For fuck’s sake.

If we wanted to be accurate about it, we have a system which is primarily based on wealth, with a heaping side of racism.

We have the rich looking down at the poor, and poor whites looking down at poor blacks.

That seems too convenient as a distraction to be unintentional, especially given how it is encouraged by some in power.

They blame the ills of society on those least able to affect them, in order to distract from the real issues. If the ignorant stop blaming the immigrant for taking their job, or the black man for violence, they may see the issue, and want a real solution. Best to keep the mob entertained and distracted, no matter the cost.

A real solution involves addressing the wealth disparity, either by reducing it, or by setting a baseline which is comfortable enough not to cause problems. Traditionally those who make rules like to make rules which favor them, until they no longer even realize they are doing so, and start to make law which is not based on solving issues in the real world at all, but simply to make keeping power and wealth easier.

We have been at that for a while, and the longer we engage in this the more we will need someone to blame.

 

[shelbystripes]

I didn’t write the following, but it seems 100% on-point here, given the misguided attempt to avoid offending racists by avoiding the word “racism”:

Can 'allies' please stop trying to "get through" to racists and change their minds?

When y'all challenge racists it shouldn't be with the purpose of getting them on board with not being pieces of shit. That's not why we confront white supremacy.

When we debate and argue with racists with the intent of saving them from themselves and/or changing their minds, we're centering the oppressors and not the oppressed.

You can't "reason" away hatred for someone else's identity. You can't "logic" away bigotry.

I've argued with thousands of racists and maybe changed one or two minds.

The reason you're arguing with racists, confronting Nazis, challenging your xenophobic grandma, and ruining Thanksgiving dinner is to uplift and center the voices of the marginalized and situationally make being a racist as uncomfortable as being a person of color.

We don't care if racists become better people. The goal should be advocating for and defending the oppressed.

Anti-racism work isn't about changing the minds of racists. It's about changing the environments that allow them to practice their racism freely.

It's about speaking up for the voiceless.

If prioritizing the mental and emotional growth of oppressors is your reason for intervening, you've already lost.

Fuck them. It's not about them. It's not about you, either.

It never was.

 

[Wickwick]

I didn’t write the following, but it seems 100% on-point here, given the misguided attempt to avoid offending racists by avoiding the word “racism”:

Can 'allies' please stop trying to "get through" to racists and change their minds?

When y'all challenge racists it shouldn't be with the purpose of getting them on board with not being pieces of shit. That's not why we confront white supremacy.

When we debate and argue with racists with the intent of saving them from themselves and/or changing their minds, we're centering the oppressors and not the oppressed.

You can't "reason" away hatred for someone else's identity. You can't "logic" away bigotry.

I've argued with thousands of racists and maybe changed one or two minds.

The reason you're arguing with racists, confronting Nazis, challenging your xenophobic grandma, and ruining Thanksgiving dinner is to uplift and center the voices of the marginalized and situationally make being a racist as uncomfortable as being a person of color.

We don't care if racists become better people. The goal should be advocating for and defending the oppressed.

Anti-racism work isn't about changing the minds of racists. It's about changing the environments that allow them to practice their racism freely.

It's about speaking up for the voiceless.

If prioritizing the mental and emotional growth of oppressors is your reason for intervening, you've already lost.

Fuck them. It's not about them. It's not about you, either.

It never was.

You're missing my point. If every person that benefits from institutional racism is a racist then by your text above, fuck 'em all. At which point, blacks are on their own to change the system.

Or there could be a huge number of white folks that don't really stop to realize they benefit from institutional racism. They could be swayed to your side if approached with a convincing message. Intentionally using language that causes distress and telling them to go fuck themselves is not going to gain you their political support. Which, basically, is what you've told me to do on several occasions.

Is it less distress than a black person goes through daily? Of course. But you can choose to either make minor political concessions in your word choice to gain a potentially massive block of allies or you can continue your hardline approach. Since you appear to not give a rat's ass that white people might understand the term "caste" better than "institutional racism" you've apparently chosen the latter. And, from the point of view of one of those potential political allies I've got to say that what you're doing is just making it too damned easy for the actual, active racists to keep the current system running.


"Anti-racism work isn't about changing the minds of racists. It's about changing the environments that allow them to practice their racism freely."

You do realize that you're going to need the support of white people to change the laws and the environment, right?

I'm out. I'm done.