namezam t1_j9agglc wrote
I work for a company that does data analysis and one of our clients has us finding bias by demographics, primarily race, primarily African American. I went in to this project with an open mind, expecting to find some correlative data to suggest self-organizing populations of similar demographics trend towards their own bias, and that is the case, but that makes it very convenient for malicious humans to use seemingly innocuous algorithms to deny entire populations.
So when a large religious fried chicken joint has used metrics like location to major thoroughfares, propensity to eat out, gun ownership, church donations etc… we find that if we overlay that on a map of high-income mostly White neighborhoods… well look at that. Did they say, “we won’t build in Black and Brown neighborhoods” ? No, but they didn’t need to.
DankVectorz t1_j9bwy95 wrote
Tbf if a fried chicken joint owned by white people decided to open primarily in black neighborhoods that would probably be construed as racist as well
future_shoes t1_j9cvr8o wrote
The guy the founded Popeye's Chicken is white.
goochisdrunk t1_j9bzync wrote
Tbf if you're going into a black neighborhood to eat fried chicken, why would you go to the white owned place?
epochpenors t1_j9ciwp2 wrote
If they opened up a place called “Mudflap’s Oversized Lip-Smackin’ Chicken” and only brought it to black neighborhoods, yes that would be extremely racist. If Chik-Fil-A opened up locations in black neighborhoods and white neighborhoods without significant bias I’m sure no one would care really.
[deleted] t1_j9cvyf5 wrote
[deleted]
stewmander t1_j9cgheq wrote
hoosierdaddy192 t1_j9dh466 wrote
Who the fuck is downvoting Letterkenny? You got a problem with Letterkenny you have a problem with me and I suggest you let that marinate.
SilasX t1_j9e6s8t wrote
Like KFC?
DankVectorz t1_j9f86a9 wrote
I don’t think kfc is only in primarily black neighborhoods?
SilasX t1_j9f8yg8 wrote
Ah okay. Missed that part. Still not sure that makes a difference here. It definitely has a lot of its locations in black neighborhoods.
juliuspepperwoodchi t1_j9bwhga wrote
You figure out an overlap of demos that AREN'T race/gender/sexuality directly, but which, when combined, effectively equate to a particular race/gender/sexuality and then just say you're focused on the former, not the latter.
Tale as old as time.
Clutteredmind275 t1_j9dz65w wrote
It’s called systemic racism for a reason right? Get to do racist things and then say “oh no it’s not racist, it’s just that’s what the system says is best. We’re just trying to be efficient guys! Honest!”
adfraggs t1_j9h2jww wrote
I must say, this is one of the best examples and explanations of systemic racism that I've ever come across. reddit does have it's moments of magic.
[deleted] t1_j9cionb wrote
[deleted]
joe-re t1_j9ap24i wrote
It's the well-known statistical problem. Race and gender is highly correlated with a lot of other factors, so if you optimize for any of those factors for whatever reasons, you get a bias in race/gender. And next you're called out to be racist or sexist.
no-comment-3 t1_j9bay51 wrote
Canadian senator Murray Sinclair, who chaired Canada's Truth and Reconcilliation commission put it pretty well:
"If you get rid of all of the racists in all of the positions of government, policing, justice, health — you will still have a problem. Because you will have a system that is functioning based upon policies, priorities and decisions that direct how things are to be done, that come from a time when racism was very blatant."
When people talk (knowledgeably) about systemic racism or systemic sexism, this is what they mean. They aren't automatically accusing people who are part of these systems of being racist, they're calling on people who have agency within that system to learn more, uncover their blind spots, and make changes.
I will concede, however that there are people who equate systemic discrimination with personal bigotry. Some of them just don't get the nuance, some of them are frustrated that people in power are remaing "blind" to these problems for so long, and start to think that maybe there's something else to it.
Weazelfish t1_j9bevm4 wrote
This is the most exhausting discussion in the world and it keeps. happening.
no-comment-3 t1_j9cb6vh wrote
Part of the reason why the discussion keeps happening is because more and more people are being brought into it. Fresh ears need to hear it, even if the voices are tired.
It's important to know when and how to take breaks from the work so that it doesn't burn you out, and so that you can step back and strategize about where you're going to put your time and energy.
thzmand t1_j9g2cf0 wrote
Actually what people need to do is look out for themselves and their families. Nobody gets their rent paid this month because they were morally progressive. Actually we have very little responsibility towards one another, as evidenced by the fact that our moms were the last people to pay a bill or solve a problem for us.
You have kids in school today who lost a year of instructional time, are graduating into historic inflation and a recession, who can't afford a house, who likely will struggle to make good on their college investments....but people think they "need" to learn about something beyond what puts money in their pocket. It's a really pathetic ideology to think that anyone "needs" a religion or philosophy. If you are living on your own and working you don't need a damn thing more than the skills you sell to an employer. Because nobody is giving you jack shit in return.
no-comment-3 t1_j9gu0fz wrote
I personally want to work in a world where what you're saying is true.
Unfortunately, the reality is that in some sectors, in order to feed your family, some people may find themselves required to put up with illegal abuses of power in order to be allowed to keep their jobs, or face other barriers that limit them unfairly.
If you think those barriers and abuses don't exist, well, congratultions on your lottery win, sir.
thzmand t1_j9hwab4 wrote
>Unfortunately, the reality is that in some sectors, in order to feed your family, some people may find themselves required to put up with illegal abuses of power in order to be allowed to keep their jobs, or face other barriers that limit them unfairly.
That's the reason behind my sentiment.
Busy-Okra-7732 t1_j9ckf0a wrote
Idk it's really only been a few decades.
Weazelfish t1_j9ee7er wrote
Maybe it's short on a historical timeline, but I am so tired of the knee-jerk 'but I don't hate anybody' reaction
Uncynical_Diogenes t1_j9crlnc wrote
>happening.
Idk about this word. We never actually have the discussion, and I can tell, because the word “reparations” is still a bogeyman.
No, I think this discussion keeps getting hinted at, and you’re tired of the hints. Because if we actually ever had the conversation, you’d have much more immediately relevant things to complain about.
ZoharDTeach t1_j9crjau wrote
>When people talk (knowledgeably) about systemic racism or systemic sexism, this is what they mean. They aren't automatically accusing people who are part of these systems of being racist, they're calling on people who have agency within that system to learn more, uncover their blind spots, and make changes.
Except this almost never happens and it is instead used as a cudgel that you are not allowed to defend yourself against lest ye be labelled racist.
no-comment-3 t1_j9dnat1 wrote
you should probably get off the internet and talk to real people for a bit.
timojenbin t1_j9b8mkt wrote
>if you optimize for any of those factors
>
>...
>
>And next you're called out to be racist or sexist
r/woosh
aotus_trivirgatus t1_j9c47rf wrote
>And next you're called out to be racist or sexist.
And since it's a well-known statistical problem, that might not be wrong.
GetlostMaps t1_j9bwc3w wrote
I'm not sure that the correlation is with gender. It tends to be with sex. Best not to conflate them these days.
GrandmaPoses t1_j9b8gp3 wrote
But fried chicken restaurants aren’t a public service. If they’ve determined profitability by location based on prior data, you can’t fault them for their decision. That is, they’re a symptom of a larger problem and can’t be expected to be a vanguard of equality.
obscureposter t1_j9ct8qa wrote
I find zero problem with a private company using data like that to determine where to open a location. It’s not racist to want to open a store where you are most likely to make profit. That’s just good business. I never understood people wanting corporations to be as you said the vanguard of equality. It’s strange that we will complain about corporations having too much power but then expect them to be the champions of our society.
thzmand t1_j9g1ja9 wrote
It's because they are authoritarians at heart and they look to companies and government regulation as big hammers
drmcsinister t1_j9cq85g wrote
>determined profitability by location
I also heard Chick-fil-A is a lot more controlling in terms of spacing out franchises to avoid overlap and prohibiting ownership groups from owning multiple locations. So determining locations that maximize profitability is a good thing for their franchisees.
LiesInRuins t1_j9ay9ad wrote
You go where the market is.
BeABetterHumanBeing t1_j9bey7b wrote
What was useful for me to understand is that 21st-century racists treat racism like some kind of taint that pollutes everything it touches. Of course, instead of thinking of it as acting via miasma or some other gobbledegook, this reasoning uses egregious abuse of statistics to achieve a pseudo-scientific foundation instead. The general gist is that anything that can be found to have a slight correlation with race must necessarily be racist.
The problem with the idea "you go where the market is" is that it doesn't inject a racist lens onto everything. It proposes a kind of decision-making that isn't fundamentally rooted in a racist worldview, and therefore is impossible for our dear 21st-century racists to grasp.
Zandrick t1_j9cpz3w wrote
Yeah this is exactly right. I think if you look at the chicken place and decide it’s racist for using things like propensity to eat out and location to large thoroughfares, like the other guy was saying. But then conclude the chicken place is racist, it’s like you weren’t willing to accept any other answer.
These issues are correlated but pointing the finger of causation at the chicken place itself doesn’t make sense and doesn’t lead to any kind of useful solution.
Is relevant, because it’s what they seem to be doing in this article with sexism. Apparently only men are working these specific jobs? That’s not about the trains being built in the wrong location.
ASpaceOstrich t1_j9if9f4 wrote
The chicken place isn't being called racist. That's where you're misunderstanding things. It's pointing out an ongoing symptom of systemic racism. Why do you think "propensity to eat out" correlates with race?
Zandrick t1_j9ifdl1 wrote
I agree entirely, you should recognize it as a symptom rather than a root cause, that’s actually my point.
ASpaceOstrich t1_j9ijkg8 wrote
That's what people who are discussing systemic racism and sexism are doing. Sure there'll be the obnoxious twitter types who just learnt a new buzzword to justify their own bigotry, but anyone who's opinion actually matters is referring to symptoms not a cause.
Don't let the twitter people drive you away from the actual progressive values. I did for way too long, but fuck those people. I'm not letting them dictate how I think any more.
Being aware of the systemic issues is a big deal because it let's you start thinking about useful changes. How can we solve the root cause? Can we even? Failing that, how can we patch the symptoms up, which in the long term may very well be the most practical way to solve the root cause?
We can't go back and undo racism, but we can attempt to negate its symptoms for long enough that it's no longer leaving scars behind. That's the point behind things like affirmative action.
Or in the case of the road salting example in the OP. They look at practices that people would just assume are put in place for the right reasons and discover that, due to prejudice at the time they were implemented, they aren't actually ideal. On a gut level "road salting practices were sexist" sounds absurd but then when you look at data and the goals and values of society when those practices were implemented suddenly it makes sense. Imagine if they were only salting roads in white neighbourhoods? That's the sort of issue the study has found.
Zandrick t1_j9ilygi wrote
If a person can come away from a discussion with a statement “the way they salt the roads is sexist”. The discussion was a waste of time, because that statement is foolish.
Never get so high minded that you need to re-explain a simple statement with five paragraphs and a thesis statement in order to make that statement make sense. Just make the original statement make sense. The way they salt the roads is not sexist, that’s absurd.
“We should salt the roads differently because the way we do it now is not optimal.” Easy, truthful, means the same thing without accidentally calling into question anyone’s moral character.
icanith t1_j9c7qlc wrote
Are you arguing that black communities arent in the market for fried chicken blessed by god?
LiesInRuins t1_j9caaxn wrote
No. I’m arguing there may be a competitor who already has that market
monkChuck105 t1_j9byydf wrote
So Chick-fil-A doesn't build in poor neighborhoods? I wonder why!?? The funny part is "black and brown people" don't wanna live in these places either, as soon as they get a little money they move. Is it really on fast food restaurants to fix poverty? They put restaurants where they expect to make the most money, with minimal risk. Somehow I doubt you'd hold an Amazon warehouse or Google data center to the same absurd standard as a company you disagree with religiously or politically.
aotus_trivirgatus t1_j9c43kn wrote
>So when a large religious fried chicken joint
Tell us you're talking about Chick-Fil-A without telling us you're talking about Chick-Fil-A.
EatSleepJeep t1_j9d3rek wrote
Could also be Pizza Ranch.
D-redditAvenger t1_j9dgjjv wrote
Explain to me the point of your hypothesis? Is your intention to fine them for not building there? Make them build it there?
hotfezz81 t1_j9fb18j wrote
>a large religious fried chicken joint has used metrics like location to major thoroughfares, propensity to eat out
Wow, clearly they're racist. What sort of food selling business would site themselves near lots of people who order food???
Moms_spaghetti_6969 t1_j9d634l wrote
Does gun ownership and church donations correlate to liking chicken? Weird data to use.
thzmand t1_j9g18np wrote
OK but hear me out. Find Church's chicken on a map and then go to street view.
rdcpro t1_j9cazql wrote
Well said. I have a hard time understanding the motivation behind this approach for a business of any kind, let alone a fast food chicken chain.
Bionic_Ferir t1_j9dps6q wrote
Its a dog whistle in corporate form... I'm not racist but none of my locations are near black people
peeping_somnambulist t1_j9e2ugc wrote
Don't nobody want that white people fried chicken anyway.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments