I have to agree that at the end of the day this looks like a lack of comprehension of what is being meant. And that’s no offense to you Vic, this isn’t the first of these conversations I’ve seen you in and if memory serves you always attempt to be civil and try to understand but the ideas presented just don’t seem to connect. That’s cool, you at least seem to try and maybe one day the connection will form.
So to that end let me see if I can present it in a potentially different way that may or may not help. Everything around us can be broken into systems from a scientific viewpoint right? My sauté pan is a system in which chemical reactions produce my dinner. Likewise the Earth is a system in which innumerable variables, some natural some man made, contribute to climate change. My neighborhood is a system that is effected by and had reactions to events based on its socioeconomic make up, it’s racial and ethnic diversity, political outlook, etc. And much like the food on my stove certain predictions can be made by studying how the variables involved interact under certain circumstances. Which is after all exactly what Mav and AJ are experts in.
Workplaces are systems to, both in the small sense, my ambulance itself is a system, the base I run out of its one as well, as is the company I work for as a whole. They’re also systems in the larger sense, EMS throughout the state of PA, EMS throughout the country, or even healthcare as a whole industry.
So now that that’s established let’s take that idea to a computer. A computer has no prejudice so it will react based solely on the numbers, it cares nothing about one pixel shade compared to another, has no sense of historical transgressions, and in no way is predisposed to a certain reaction.
So let’s create a model of society in the computer, a system that is clean on which to predict what a non-prejudicial system would look like. We can program in population, population density, racial, ethnic, and religious demographics and distribution, socioeconomic distribution, educational levels, etc. Then we program in criminal activity, likelihood of interaction with law enforcement, and likelihood of violent outcomes.
The thing is is that computer models like this are programmed all the time, and they tell us exactly what we should be able to predict in terms of white vs black vs Hispanic vs Asian, etc. criminal activity. We see what should be expected in terms of how frequently cops are involved, and how frequently things go badly. We can even separate things based on education and socioeconomic status (since those are actually the best predictors for probable criminal activity). If there were no prejudice in the system itself then the real world should reflect the computer model, but it doesn’t. In the real world young black men are far more likely to be arrested, charged, indicted, to have a run in in general with law enforcement, and to be the victim of police violence. And while the first gut reaction might be to blame that on individual cops or the actions of individual criminals, we can actually account for that as well. Assuming police have the same distribution of prejudice as the country as a whole, and that black men are subject to the same percentage likelihood of acting the fool during a police encounter, we still end up with real world ratios that are skewed towards a greater degree of violence towards black men than predicted by statistically relevant margins.
That means that unlike the computer models, the real world of law enforcement has, in its system, prejudices based on race.
One basic example of this is the predisposition to suspect black men of potential criminal activity before white men, because black men are statistically more likely to be criminals. This leads to racial profiling and even Minority Report style computer programs that are actually programed to be prejudicial, and disproportionately predict black men to be the perpetrators of crime. This of course creates a mindset police often follow where, unlike white men, black men are guilty until proven innocent. This is what leads not only to higher incidents of police encounters by black men, it also leads to more arrests, charges, and indictments. It leads to a greater percentage of black criminals being caught than white criminals, and yes, leads to cops being more on edge around black men and more likely to react with lethal force for their own protection, regardless of whether or not they were in any actual danger.
Well that’s my incredibly verbose attempt to help. If it did help, awesome, if not that’s cool, maybe some day someone can explain it in a better way for you. If you do get it but disagree that’s your right to and while it would mean we disagree I still respect that. And if this was just way too long I apologize, I’m not good at being concise 🙂