California Doing California Things

[Politesse]

And we see you falling into the standard trap of disparate outcomes being taken as proof of discrimination.

Being asked for evidence for your outrageous claims is not some rhetorical trick. It's common sense.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Good grief

The Los Angeles Mayor advocated for dental care for drug users in the city, saying that new teeth would set them up for success. Karen Bass spoke alongside fellow candidates at a forum to discuss funding for the city's homelessness crisis as she bids for reelection to a second term. During a controversial tirade, the mayor proclaimed that dental care, specifically new teeth, was vital in getting the homeless population off the streets. 'How many people that you meet that are unhoused don't have teeth at all,' Bass said at the Original Pantry Cafe in Los Angeles. 'They don't have teeth. Why? Because meth rots your teeth.'

Daily Mail

She has been a complete failure for the city of Los Angeles. If she had a shred of integrity she would have resigned after letting the Pacific Palisades burn down. But no. If she had any decency she would not be running for a second term but no.

Spencer Pratt, a former reality TV personality is a strong contender in the race for Los Angeles mayor. If the people of Los Angeles give Bass a second term, well they deserve everything that is coming to them.

And how is she responsible??

The only real fix is to seriously beef up the fire code.

Yes, one reservoir was empty--maintenance happens. You want to budget for a spare there? And there simply is no fighting a major wind-driven fire. The energy density is beyond what we can handle. You stop it by denying fuel: every house must have no fuel on it's surface (no wooden trim!) and no entry for sparks.

For the main problem, look in the mirror. Small changes in temperature make big changes in the fire risk.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Disparate outcomes/impact is not evidence of "racism".

Of course it is evidence of racism. Doesn’t mean it is conclusive evidence or proof.

The problem is the left keeps skipping over this proof bit. You jump directly from disparate outcome to discrimination. You say you don't, but then you turn right around and do it again.

Nor is it a reason for politicians to prohibit police from doing their jobs.

Of course it is a reason in a fair and rational society.

As you are here. You have not established that the police are discriminating, but you are saying to hobble them because they are discriminating.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Disparate outcomes/impact is not evidence of "racism".

Of course it is evidence of racism. Doesn’t mean it is conclusive evidence or proof.

The problem is the left keeps skipping over this proof bit. You jump directly from disparate outcome to discrimination. You say you don't, but then you turn right around and do it again.

Nor is it a reason for politicians to prohibit police from doing their jobs.

Of course it is a reason in a fair and rational society.

As you are here. You have not established that the police are discriminating, but you are saying to hobble them because they are discriminating.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Neighborhoods with higher crime rates get policed more heavily in general.

As a result, more crimes are detected in those neighbourhoods.

This increases the crime rate. Thereby justifying increased policing.

It's neatly circular, and only needs a pinch of racism to prime the pump, after which the system carries on producing racist outcomes without racists having to act on their racism at all, other than to occasionally defend the system as being non-racist because it is based only on "crime rates", which clearly have no racial component whatsoever and just happen to expose the fundamental fact that niggers are a bunch of criminals some neighbourhoods are more prone to crime than others.

Pretending it's racism doesn't make it so.

A simple yardstick that doesn't involve policing at all: look around, how much property damage could you readily do/how much could you steal? If the answer is lots, you are in a safe location (at least assuming you aren't specifically targeted.) If the answer is little, the location very well might not be safe. This is measuring the risk evaluation of the people in the area. Looking along our street, I see multiple garden hoses, multiple pots holding plants, some lawn furniture, a truck with some tools in the back. Security bars are in the minority, no bars on the second floor windows. The fact that you see such things is a very clear indication that we consider the theft risk low enough that we have no problem leaving them out there.

The fact that more people are arrested in a location doesn't draw police. The fact that it's easier to find someone that should be arrested (or ticketed) does draw police--they're human, they'll go for the low hanging fruit.

And, yes, some neighborhoods are more prone to crime than others. Low socioeconomic status and transient populations both lead to crime.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You find more crimes/infractions when you look for them. It is well documented that children of color face more and harsher discipline than their white classmates starting in preschool.

Why should we believe any of this?

We see the same pattern over and over--find "discrimination", do not look deeper to see if there's something else at work.

Surely you have been in school and noticed that some kids were always in trouble while other kids got away with stuff? I certainly did and we were all 100% white. My older sibling was an excellent student, earning perfect scores and always perfectly behaved. Because it was known that I was their sister, it was assumed that I would be as intelligent and well behaved. I got credit for being better behaved than I was —except for one year when the teacher disliked me and blatantly favored some other kids I was a good student

Yeah, teachers are often biased. Not all bias is racism. Through high school the bias I saw was related to charisma and kowtowing. And, in some cases, make sure you think like they do. Worst one (literature), I wasn't good at guessing her positions, but found I could do above 90% on tests by simply selecting based on wording, much better than I could at figuring out how she thought. Nothing that looked like racism until college--and it was all supposedly combating discrimination.

t, actually and as was the custom ofthe day, his students were often assigned to help students who were ‘struggling’ I was asked to help a boy named Mike who was frequently in trouble with this teacher and who the teacher regarded as being a trouble maker ( she disliked me for pointing out he could not have broken something on Friday because he wasn’t at school on Friday). Turns out, he did not need any help—he knew his stuff backwards and forwards. And it was arithmetic so not a lot of room for interpretation. I saw time and again that some kids were always in trouble for things other kids were not. And that I could have gotten by with murder—because the teachers saw me as a smart good girl.

There certainly are problems--but you're not establishing that race is the cause.

If teachers are told a student or group of students are extremely intelligent, they treat them that way. Abd if they ar e told that students are not very bright, they treat them that way. Test results reflect the perceptions the teachers have of students based on what they were told. Self fulfilling prophesies.

And why do you think they are told things along racial lines?

Do you really think that doesn’t happen writ large, in law enforcement? It absolutely does.

Communities of color are more heavily policed and persons of color are more likely to be arrested for the same infractions white people are not prosecuted for. Persons of color are more likely to be found guilty abd receive harsher sentencing compared with their white counterparts convicted of similar crimes

As always, they find "discrimination" and stop there.

Socioeconomic!! "Justice" is considerably influenced by how much you can afford for defense.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Disparate outcomes/impact is not evidence of "racism".

Of course it is evidence of racism. Doesn’t mean it is conclusive evidence or proof.

Things that are consistent with a number of different explanations are not evidence for any particular one.

Any single outcome is consistent with multiple explanations, so what is your point?

Of course they are evidence, just not proof or conclusive evidence.

And herein lies much of the problem: it isn't.

It is evidence of something, but you don't know what it's evidence of if multiple reasonable explanations exist.

Of course it is a reason in a fair and rational society.

No, it is not. Traffic laws exist for a reason. To not enforce them because too many of the preferred races commit traffic infractions in LA is just the height of identity politics idiocy.

As a general principle, if laws are enforced in an unjust manner, then either the enforcers should or changed or the laws changed in a fair and rational society.

Your response presumes no underlying racism in enforcement. Apparently the gov’t thought it had evidence. Do you have independent evidence - not opinion- that suggests they were incorrect?

Because the discrimination warriors have to find discrimination to keep their jobs. Thus they will "find" it, whether or not it exists. You can always manipulate a complex enough data set to "prove" relationships.

I've already pointed out one smoking gun I've seen: supposed redlining where the simplest hypothesis is that bankers don't like underwater mortgages.

 

[laughing dog]

Disparate outcomes/impact is not evidence of "racism".

Of course it is evidence of racism. Doesn’t mean it is conclusive evidence or proof.

Things that are consistent with a number of different explanations are not evidence for any particular one.

Any single outcome is consistent with multiple explanations, so what is your point?

Of course they are evidence, just not proof or conclusive evidence.

And herein lies much of the problem: it isn't.

It is evidence of something, but you don't know what it's evidence of if multiple reasonable explanations exist.

Of course it is a reason in a fair and rational society.

No, it is not. Traffic laws exist for a reason. To not enforce them because too many of the preferred races commit traffic infractions in LA is just the height of identity politics idiocy.

As a general principle, if laws are enforced in an unjust manner, then either the enforcers should or changed or the laws changed in a fair and rational society.

Your response presumes no underlying racism in enforcement. Apparently the gov’t thought it had evidence. Do you have independent evidence - not opinion- that suggests they were incorrect?

Because the discrimination warriors have to find discrimination to keep their jobs. Thus they will "find" it, whether or not it exists. You can always manipulate a complex enough data set to "prove" relationships.

I've already pointed out one smoking gun I've seen: supposed redlining where the simplest hypothesis is that bankers don't like underwater mortgages.

The irony of your response is astounding. Racism apologists can always manipulate a complex enough data set to “prove” relationships.

 

[Toni]

Disparate outcomes/impact is not evidence of "racism".

Of course it is evidence of racism. Doesn’t mean it is conclusive evidence or proof.

Things that are consistent with a number of different explanations are not evidence for any particular one.

Any single outcome is consistent with multiple explanations, so what is your point?

Of course they are evidence, just not proof or conclusive evidence.

And herein lies much of the problem: it isn't.

It is evidence of something, but you don't know what it's evidence of if multiple reasonable explanations exist.

Of course it is a reason in a fair and rational society.

No, it is not. Traffic laws exist for a reason. To not enforce them because too many of the preferred races commit traffic infractions in LA is just the height of identity politics idiocy.

As a general principle, if laws are enforced in an unjust manner, then either the enforcers should or changed or the laws changed in a fair and rational society.

Your response presumes no underlying racism in enforcement. Apparently the gov’t thought it had evidence. Do you have independent evidence - not opinion- that suggests they were incorrect?

Because the discrimination warriors have to find discrimination to keep their jobs. Thus they will "find" it, whether or not it exists. You can always manipulate a complex enough data set to "prove" relationships.

I've already pointed out one smoking gun I've seen: supposed redlining where the simplest hypothesis is that bankers don't like underwater mortgages.

The irony of your response is astounding. Racism apologists can always manipulate a complex enough data set to “prove” relationships.

Or just make up ‘conclusions’ that don’t fit data but absolutely DO fit their racist pov.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The cops go to where they're called. If there's an alleged crime, that's where they go. To think otherwise is to engage in an idealistic fantasy that stubbornly prevents any critical thinking and therefore prevents addressing the hard facts of the situation currently at issue in this thread.

Mostly--but there is an issue of where a cop chooses to patrol.

But the reality is cops are mostly measured by what they do--and that's going to be based on how much wrongdoing they find. Cop laying in wait for traffic violations? I got a surprise recently when I saw one without seeing any issue that would cause speeding--the vast majority of times I see a cop ambush I can see what is distorting the situation causing more violations than usual.

And there's the fact that street corner dealing is much easier to bust than behind closed doors dealing. This will unquestionably mean lower income people are more likely to be busted for dealing.

To say that certain groups of people are arrested at a higher rate because cops are racist is as lazy and therefore as damaging as the same sweeping generalities that conservatives make. These types of deflections get nothing done and worse, they only serve to make the problems in poor communities worse by looking outward rather than inward to solve the problem(s). When Obama attempted to address the issue as one of change needing to come from within, he was first applauded but eventually vociferously derided by leadership from the groups he wanted to help.

Of course he was derided. Those "leaders" position is based on crusading against discrimination--there has to be discrimination or their careers are wiped out. Social problems can never be "solved" because that's a big problem for those who were trying to solve them. Thus the "problem" will persist even if actually solved. Sure, there are racists about--but they are here and there, not pervasive.

Maybe a good hypothetical question would be to consider that if all racist cops could be removed, would crime go down in communities experiencing high crime rates?

Another would to ask if policing was the same in low crime areas, would crime go up in those areas and would crime go down in high crime areas?

I think the answers are obvious but I am curious to hear how others would answer those questions.

And note that in many cases the "racist" profiling isn't actually about race. Cops look for the abnormal. The drug mules often don't match the local racial pattern--but they're not targeted on race, but because they stand out. Likewise, white guy, good car, coming from drug territory--likely bought drugs. But it's also the local spot where the map shows a path exists, but it's actually locked out. Ran into a guy whose gf got accosted by the security for the gated community when she encountered it at night. (You were planning to go through there, find you can't, it's going to be a multi-mile detour (foot or bike, no cars out there) to go around, you look a bit before giving up. You look like someone trying to sneak into a very expensive area.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Similarly, the state did away with "jaywalking" tickets and the result has been more pedestrians being injured.

You know damn well that "jaywalking" was only ever treated as a crime in the barrios. White people in their little suburban neighborhoods cross the street to get to their mailbox or chat with Mrs Macready about the petunias and no one bats an eye.

I was ticketed for jaywalking in my little suburban neighborhood, and yes, I'm a white person. I thought about going to court and contesting the obviously false charge -- the ticket claimed I was doing 35 mph -- but I decided to just pay the fine.

If you were ticketed for jaywalking and were doing 35mph then you should try to beat Usain Bolt in a sprint.
Unless jaywalking in the US means something different.

I think he's saying the cop badly messed up the ticket.

But I have a screenshot of Google showing me walking (correctly) supersonic (extremely incorrectly--the reality is that it considered my start point as a certain forest (true), but collapsed all points in a location to a single point. Thus my start point got treated as the headquarters for the management agency for the forest.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I live in a small town in Oregon and the homeless problem is beginning to become a serious issue here. At this point the town can afford to give them some money, put them on buses, and ship them to a warmer climate like Texas or Florida.

It's a very blue little town, but when services for the homeless arise, most of us have sense enough to know that if you build it, they will come.

L.A.'s heart was in the right place but it has backfired badly. The fact that dogshit red states send their undesirables there should be a federal fine of $500K or more per violation---anything to discourage making SoCal's problems worse.

Yeah, they would have come anyway. Of the large cities where the heat doesn't go into the danger zone it's got the mildest winters.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Throw them out of hospitals before they are fully healed.

This is not a sin. It has been found that sending patients home as soon as they don't need hospital-level care produces a better outcome. People in hospitals tend to acquire infections from others in the hospital. Finish healing at home!

 

[Politesse]

Throw them out of hospitals before they are fully healed.

This is not a sin. It has been found that sending patients home as soon as they don't need hospital-level care produces a better outcome. People in hospitals tend to acquire infections from others in the hospital. Finish healing at home!

When your home is an alley?

 

[Politesse]

Disparate outcomes/impact is not evidence of "racism".

Of course it is evidence of racism. Doesn’t mean it is conclusive evidence or proof.

The problem is the left keeps skipping over this proof bit. You jump directly from disparate outcome to discrimination. You say you don't, but then you turn right around and do it again.

Nor is it a reason for politicians to prohibit police from doing their jobs.

Of course it is a reason in a fair and rational society.

As you are here. You have not established that the police are discriminating, but you are saying to hobble them because they are discriminating.

Direct testimony from victims? Not proof. Published statements of perpetrators? Not proof. Statistical evidence? Not proof. The legal record? Not proof. Anything at all? Not proof.

To racists, nothing is proof of racist intent unless the perpetrator was Black, Latino, or a liberal. That cannot be the standard on which we choose to act on the critical issues of our time.

The funny thing is, as bad as it is that the police are racist, racist intent isn't actually what makes police misconduct illegal. It's just the bias that motivates the police to break the law and violate our constitutional rights most frequently. You're not wrong that classism, sexism, religious bigotry, legal illiteracy, ineptness at their jobs, and other factors also tempt police into becoming thugs-for-hire for the kleptocracy, but why would we be any happier about those?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah, several people here are making the claim that red states are rounding up their homeless and busing (flying?) them to California (or elsewhere). That's news to me and I would like to see the receipts on that. Otherwise, I call BS on that claim. My thoughts are that they are coming here of their own volition via their own vehicle, bus, train or hitchike, etc. Maybe people are confusing homeless busing with those who were illegally crossing the border under Biden and were getting bused to Chicago, New York City, etc. by "Hot Wheels" et al.

Rounding up--no. Tickets to "family", yes. Been around for years.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I used to be against a universal basic income but I've come to appreciate just how much that could go towards solving some basic problems for a lot of people, including people I know and some I am related to.

What is infuriating is that if we “took” from the top 1% of earners ‘self net worth increasers’, enough to alleviate homelessness for the bottom 1%, they wouldn’t even feel it. It would be a fourth digit from the left kind of thing. I think it should help the bottom 15% or so, should the amount “taxed” to the top 1% be raised to a level where it had any impact whatsoever upon the mega billionaires’ daily wants and needs.
What we need now is a bit of good old fashioned socialism! No tax havens for the uber- rich, no deductions for loan interest payments against assets (a federal surcharge on such loans above 8-9 digits might be helpful)…
Hell, there is only one billionaire I ever heard of (though I’m sure there are others) who would be penniless if all accounts were settled. Let the rest tough it out with the billions they are already “worth”.

Won't work.

Nowhere near enough money, and when you're looking at the bottom 1% you're looking at mostly druggies and mental cases. And don't chant "treatment"--often there isn't. And it's never easy, and the side effects of the psych drugs are often bad.

 

[laughing dog]

Disparate outcomes/impact is not evidence of "racism".

Of course it is evidence of racism. Doesn’t mean it is conclusive evidence or proof.

The problem is the left keeps skipping over this proof bit. You jump directly from disparate outcome to discrimination. You say you don't, but then you turn right around and do it again.

Stop misrepresenting what I wrote. Evidence is evidence. Whether you accept it as convincing is a different matter. R

Nor is it a reason for politicians to prohibit police from doing their jobs.

Of course it is a reason in a fair and rational society.

As you are here. You have not established that the police are discriminating, but you are saaing to hobble them because they are discriminating.

The mere appearance of discrimination in these matters suggests there is something to deal with in a pluralistic fair and rational society that aspires to avoid racism. Proof is not necessary to implement policy. This is not a trial.

But hey, I can play your game. Here you are - denying the discrimination in order to continue it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And we see you falling into the standard trap of disparate outcomes being taken as proof of discrimination.

Being asked for evidence for your outrageous claims is not some rhetorical trick. It's common sense.

The problem here is you have it backwards. You are not proving causation. Don't expect us to disprove your hypothesis.

The basic problem is that we see "proof" after "proof" of supposed discrimination--which consistently fails to address obvious confounders. We have clear evidence of widespread discrimination before the civil rights era, these days we find some racists--but the evidence that pervasive discrimination still exists is awfully shaky. A plethora of poor data usually means the claim is false.

 

[Derec]

Direct testimony from victims? Not proof. Published statements of perpetrators? Not proof. Statistical evidence? Not proof. The legal record? Not proof. Anything at all? Not proof.

Proof is for math and booze. But sure, all of these things can be evidence. The question is, what does that evidence support?

If the only thing your statistical evidence supports is unequal outcomes, that is not evidence of discrimination by race. If your direct testimony evidence shows that "victims" are feeling discriminated against, that is not evidence that they are actually being discriminated against.

To racists, nothing is proof of racist intent unless the perpetrator was Black, Latino, or a liberal. That cannot be the standard on which we choose to act on the critical issues of our time.

And to you, everyone you disagree with is a "racist".

The funny thing is, as bad as it is that the police are racist,

Again, what evidence do you have of that?

racist intent isn't actually what makes police misconduct illegal.

True. For once.

It's just the bias that motivates the police to break the law and violate our constitutional rights most frequently. You're not wrong that classism, sexism, religious bigotry, legal illiteracy, ineptness at their jobs, and other factors also tempt police into becoming thugs-for-hire for the kleptocracy, but why would we be any happier about those?

Any police conduct should be impartially investigated. But your Ilk thinks that police just doing their jobs and going after criminals is misconduct.