It’s true that making decisions based on statistical risk is different from people acting out of hate. Indeed, it can be seductive to people with a basic understandinge of math that data driven decisions should be more fair minded.
But the devil is in the details. It’s famously easy to make bad decisions based on “flawless” calculations that simply don’t interpret data right or don’t take all factors into consideration. Statistics is known for this peril even in mundane business situations, but with problems that are controversial, and affect people’s lives, it’s even more perilous.
Here basic profiling would tell me you are male, correct? Did you know people like you commit 99% of murder and violent crime? Can you really blame me for crossing to the other side of the street if I see you walking toward me at night?
> Here basic profiling would tell me you are male, correct? Did you know people like you commit 99% of murder and violent crime?
In case anyone was curious, the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics believes that men are responsible for ~90% of murders and ~80% of violent crime (in the US).
Yes they do. And it's even hardware accelerated in the brain! Racial profiling is one word for a special case, but the general case is just refereed to as learning - e.g. using personal brain-stored data from the past to make future predictions.
That's mostly ridiculous. If the data they're using from their past is on past crime that they have experienced, that might be fine. But the data I can find shows that violent crime that white people experience is mostly by other white people. And regardless, most people don't experience enough crime to form statistically valid inferences about who criminals are.
And even if they did, it would be dumb statistics. If I am murdered, it's 80% likely it'll be by a white guy. But that doesn't mean I should just assume all the white guys I meet are probable murderers. It doesn't even mean that I should take precautions around white guys, however dangerous they are to me, because the odds of a given white dude being a murderer is still very low.
As studies and Nextdoor's experience show, people will racially profile strangers entirely in absence of actual experience. Indeed, as I mentioned elsewhere, people from all-white areas are much more likely to profile, and to do it in exaggerated, hysterical fashion, precisely because they have no real basis to form useful inferences about an entire race of people. Racial profiling is mostly just dressed-up tribalist nonsense. And it has been used in the US to kill thousands of black people [1], at least.
>Oh, all these people on NextDoor have carefully built validated statistical models based on clean, individually gathered data?
Take a look at FBI crime statistics by race and gender sometime. Witnessing a Asian woman committing a property or violent crime is statistically speaking like winning the lottery. If I was to assess the risk of an Asian woman walking down the street I'd rate the risk as lower than any other demographic group, is that racist and sexist?
I don't give my personal information to mean spirited bigots. I certainly reject any suggestion I provide evidence of my race as that seems like a Nazi tactic and rather unamerican.
I think you might be surprised by how often your perception of what a drug dealer looks like and behaves like is incorrect.
But still, let's assume you can reliably see this things: sure! It's very reasonable to suspect someone who is acting shady. Because there is likely a reason why they are acting shady. Race doesn't work like that, and that's why it's different. A black person didn't wake up in the morning and decide to dress or act in some way that makes some people suspicious of them. They had no choice in the matter - just simply existing is enough to make you a suspect in some people's eyes.
I did not mean to imply that only black people act shady.
BUT, if someone who looks very suspicious based on their appearance and behaviour (mannerisms, language, choices of clothes, tattoos, etc) it's normal and dare I say _healthy_ for residential (family type) neighborhoods to be suspicious of them.
If they also happen to be black, they might want to use the race card "OMG You suspect me because I'm black? Racist! How dare You!" etc, but who cares.
I am honestly surprised by the down votes my comment received.
If you let criminals into your neighbourhood because you're scared of being called a racist, something is wrong with you.
> If they also happen to be black, they might want to use the race card "OMG You suspect me because I'm black? Racist! How dare You!" etc, but who cares.
I'd say this might be an interesting moment for self-examination. If their primary reaction is outrage then they're probably not a criminal after all. Maybe think again at why you suspected this innocent person of acting shady. Maybe learn from it so you don't make the mistake again.
"who cares" isn't really a very community-minded reaction when you've just accused one of your neighbours of being a criminal.
The problem is how you define acting shady. If you're definition is people of one demographic generally dress this way therefore I think it's suspect you have an issue. If you're definition is someone who doesn't dress or act the way you, or the people around you do, again you have a problem.
Also let's keep in mind that this is the safest the world has ever been especially in America meaning statistically if you're assuming someone is up to no good based on their appearance or dress you are almost guaranteed to be wrong.
A whole lot of people's standards for "suspicious dress and behavior" basically boil down to "wearing a hoodie while black." See Treyvon Martin, who was literally murdered for walking down the street, and his killer acquitted based on nothing but his own testimony. So when people start talking about black men being "suspicious" without further explanation, the rest of are inclined to be skeptical.
And, really, "dressing suspiciously" is often bullshit no matter who's involved. As a white kid I got hassled for wearing a trenchcoat, and that was just as stupid as anything else. Adding race into it only makes it worse.
Yep, I wouldn’t want these folks as neighbors. Pattern matching is common sense and the safety of your family/self and your property trumps strangers’ feelings.
Yeah, well, guess what? If they're your neighbors, they have as much right to live in peace as you and your family do.
And if you have an issue with (as the parent you agreed with) their language, clothing choices, tattoos, then frankly, you need to do something about it - and "encouraging people to keep a watch on them", calling the police for suspicious behavior (where "suspicious" is this vague hand-wavy synonym for "I don't like them") is not it.
And trying this emotional appeal to "well, my family's safety is more important than some rando's feelings" (your exact words) is BS caging your words. Maybe you should move then? Much as you'd like them to move, and are trying to make it uncomfortable for them to be around. Hint: you have no more right to be there than your neighbors do.
And lest you suggest that maybe I need to be exposed to more mental illness, violence, sociopathy or otherwise, like you say you have, to come to a 'better' understanding / enlightenment, well... I deal with all those things, all the time, working in EMS as well as IT.
Which folks? The ones who dress funny and have tattoos? We don't want you as neighbors either. The difference is that I don't call the cops when I don't like the way my neighbors dress.
Funny you’d mention that. I saw a guy near the Seattle’s famous Pike Place market wearing a T-shirt with a sign “I sell the best weed in town” or something very close to that. If you walked buy he would offer weed with the warmest and most genuine smile. And that was before legalization.
Those aren't drug dealers (I've met a few, they didn't act like that...either that or I only met the really boring drug dealers). The only place you see "drug dealers" acting like that is tv/movies.
"Suspicious" is walking up to the front door of your house and checking if it's locked. It's walking into your backyard without permission. It's looking in the windows of your house without permission. It's checking the doors on your car to see if they're unlocked. I'll even grant you that suspicious could be hanging out in a running car in front of an empty house for 30 minutes or so. However, it's not dressing flashy and being loud. (Though feel free to call the cops if they're being super-loud at 1am in a residential area. That's just rude.)
If your definition of "suspicious" includes "this person doesn't act like me" with a dollop of "this person acts like the cartoon black people I see in movies", then you should absolutely be prepared to be called out.
You have only met really boring drug dealers. I have come across plenty of them, and only the rural and disconnected suburban operations try to fly under the radar. When you're close enough to a fairly large city, the operation running that show is usually a lot more bold/brash, and their equally brazen subsidiaries will reach out into the suburbs and rural areas. This is where things start to get extremely obvious. I'm not sure if it's because inner-city police resources are allocated toward crimes other than drug dealing, or the drug dealers don't have an understanding of what will incriminate them/draw suspicion, but you definitely know when they're working the area.
> Are you going to pretend like there are no way for people to act suspicious now?
People can act suspiciously, sure. But that doesn't mean that behavior is actually correlated with committing a crime.
People are suspicious of a lot of things they shouldn't be. As other people mentioned in this thread, just being black and walking through a white neighborhood will get you plastered all over NextDoor.
Are you going to pretend like most people have an accurate, objective way to determine which behaviors are worthy of suspicion?
The attire of actual drug dealers is irrelevant, what matters is the imaginary drug dealer dress code in the minds of the public. One of the more subtle forms of privilege is that some groups have more "freedom of fashion" than others. Richard Branson can do "a very expensive version of whatever the Dude wears in The Big Lebowski", because there are cultural stereotypes available to him to play with that are unavailable to other skin tones. Likewise, a white person wearing impeccable business in the wrong environment will evoke the worst of wallstreet, whereas a black person wearing the same would be comfortably grounded in a proud tradition of dressing upward.
Sure, but definitions aside, are we fine with it? I'm fine with it. I think there is a perfectly reasonable distinction between being cautious and wary of individuals based on statistical evidence (including race/gender/age/dress/demeanor), and treating them differently once you start interacting with them.
I.e. Every individual I talk to has a fresh, blank slate with me. Stereotypes and "profiling" only really apply until you start getting a concrete instance of said group, and deal with them in getting "fresh" data that is unique to them.
I thought it was its own category because it's not a form of prejudice, but instead refers to the use of race based statistical reasoning.
I'd rather we keep the line drawn. and not muddy the racist card.
e.g. RacialProfilistDoor is more apt