datsci_est_2015

It’s called disparate impact more specifically, but that term is unfortunately increasingly politicized as it’s inconvenient.

Yearning for a day when conservatives, whether they identify as one or not, recognize that there’s a rich history of human suffering under the yoke of conservative thought leaders that could be easily avoided if they just opened a history book. Or just read the news. Because there’s no interruption between the two. Jerry Jones is in the background of a photo of the Little Rock 9. Donald Trump led a hate campaign against the Central Park 5 in 1989. These are contemporary issues.

And the alternative for you is to just ignore that any law (or government action) has any different impact on race at all? Why are we arguing at the extremes? What alternative history must one subscribe to in order to believe that ignoring disparate impact won’t end in humans rights abuses? Have you even heard about something like how nuclear testing and proliferation disproportionately impacted the Navajo nation especially because they had absolutely no recourse against it? Are we just supposed to say “tough luck”? “Might makes right?” “Should’ve gotten a better lawyer?”

And mainstream conservative justification, including the US Supreme Court, is that because this is not overtly racist in its design, but just coincidentally racist in its impact, it has plausible deniability. Basically an extension of the “racism is over” school of thought.

And an extension of the progressive / conservative disagreement between how a system is designed vs. the impacts of a system determines its fairness and justness.

Edit: funny, I pre-sniped the sibling responses to your comment.

> What I don't understand is why it's common for intelligent people (seemingly only in the US) to consider violations of visa/immigration conditions acceptable and ICE bad guys for enforcing the law?

I think you’re focused specifically on the parenthetical: “seemingly only in the US”, whereas I am commenting on the overall sentiment, especially with the context of the first sentence of the OP’s post. Take out the parenthetical entirely from the OP’s post, and possibly the reference to ICE specifically as well, and you get a closer version to what I interpreted as the argument.

This:

> Your point is that immigration laws don't sufficiently take into account an illegal migrant's economic status (i.e. make reasonable accommodations for those in poverty or desperate circumstances)

is a fair(ish) summary of my argument.

But, it’s not really that reasonable accommodations aren’t made, it’s that there’s a vicious feedback loop that the more violent and dehumanizing your immigration policy becomes, the higher the average level of desperation your median immigrant possesses, and the fewer the means they have to avoid the worst of the human suffering that migrants experience (murder, rape, sex trafficking, alligator moats, etc). If you let that vicious cycle go untouched or even reinforce it, you’re enabling human rights violations. Citizens of countries that enable (and perform) human rights violations shouldn’t sleep well at night.

No, my issue is specifically with the original poster comparing himself with economic migrants because they’re technically subject to the same laws, even though their relative difference in wealth means that the law affects them differently enough that it’s not a fair comparison.

If a law can only possibly impact the poor, then that law is effectively written to impact the poor - the purpose of a law is what it does.

If you make it illegal to sleep on the street at night (by extension, sleeping anywhere that isn’t a legal residence), you are de facto making it illegal to be homeless.

That a law applies to everyone is not a “universal defence” in its fairness.

Not sure what there is to elaborate upon.

Allowing law enforcement to maintain a default stance of antagonism - “us vs them” - can only lead to law enforcement being leveraged by those in power (political or capital power) to define who the “them” is.

I’d much rather have law enforcement have a default cooperative stance with their communities and society at large. You know, if “protect and serve” wasn’t just a marketing gimmick but an actual principle applied during process and procedures.

In essence: thin blue line is an illiberal aesthetic that has 19th century American leaders rolling in their graves - at least the ones who weren’t chasing down slaves to return to the South.

Our armed officers first and foremost protect capital. The constitution is what limits their conduct in that pursuit. I don’t believe that in a capitalist society any alternative is possible.

That’s not to say we shouldn’t have armed officers (or not have a capitalist society), we just shouldn’t allow rhetoric to convince us of some false ideal. The 3rd and 4th amendment have a spirit that should be much more embraced and expanded at the expense of law enforcement’s ability to do their “job”.

Well, no, but you could have the very rude awakening that the in-group that you thought you were part of is suddenly now more narrowly defined than you had deluded yourself into believing. “I’m one of the good ones” quickly receives the response “there are no good ones” once the dominoes start to fall. The curse of reactionary politics is that it always crumbles under its own weight of an ever-narrowing definition of the in-group.

Your stance of LEO being an antagonistic force belies a deeper moral corruption that I find gross and incompatible with a liberal (free) society. Wilhoit’s Law and all that.

Both. Both is good.

A field guide to foraging for edible mushrooms will probably be more practical than naïve use of an LLM: “can I eat this mushroom?” is an exercise in trust that I will maybe never be comfortable with.

But “how do I effectively forage for edible mushrooms” is a great stepping stone.