The irony of the New York Times� 1619 Project...

[Sparko]

Since it's relevant again, one of my favorite memories on this site is when I introduced a longitudinal study showing that children of same-sex parents fared as well or better in development as children of opposite-sex parents. You and Cow Poke misunderstood how the study was using the term "birth parents" and spent several pages arguing that the study was invalid because how the study defined and used the terms for its purpose (by including children who were adopted into a family when they were under a year old) wasn't the "right" way to define the term.

It was similarly exhausting but illuminating at the time.

--Sam

Well, Sam, it is a given that you don't see this argument the same way we do. If you did, we wouldn't have been arguing about it for the last dozen pages. But I see it as LPOT described it in her summary. Maybe you can take that information and get a better understanding of how your argument comes across to others?

Here's to more illumination on your part.

[oxmixmudd]

Suppose you had this exchange with someone:

You: "I'm not a racist."
Other person: "But it's possible that you are a racist."

Would you really consider that a reasonable challenge to your statement?

Doesn't matter if I would or not because your analogy is not an equivalency with the discussion with Sam and how it has been twisted. Pix said real estate listings eliminated the opportunity for racial bias. That is an all inclusive absolute statement, and it simply isn't true - bias can still exist in the algorithms. That's all that needs to be said. But Pix and the rest of you demand proof there is bias before you will admit it is possible for bias to exist in the algorithms. I attribute that to your ignorance of how difficult it can be to identify biasing elements in an algorithm, but nevertheless, the whole thing has been twisted into something it never was. And I don't even understand why you all went ballistic. Yes bias can still exist. Something out there continues to bias the housing market, So we just have to figure out what sorts of things are making that happen, and it is best when asking those sorts of questions not to eliminate anything no matter how 'obvious' it seems that "can't be the problem". In fact, it is just that sort of thinking that CAUSES bias in scientific studies.



Jim

[oxmixmudd]

That experiment may or may not reveal the problem pix. The only way to do a meaningful test would be to do thousands of searches from thousands of different locations using different types of computers and software, averaging and analyzing the full results from each search. Some little anecdotal test you or I could do at home would only reveal massively obvious problems that would have already been sued or prosecuted. For example, lets suppose that 24 out 25 searches from locations that vary by demographics are identical. But that 1 out of 25 difference could results in a 4% shift in outcome and if that shift is negatively affecting people searching from black areas of town but who would notice just pecking at a keyboard? But in the end, 4% more black searchers would be directed away from some 'better' property. And that would show up in housing statistics involving the entire country.

And maybe the shift involves the use of different browsers, or different computer hardware that happens to be favored by one demographic or the other - or that just happens to respond faster to the results. It could be as simple as different internet access speeds in different areas affected by poorer facilities or off-brand carriers that influence timing on the search engines.

There are literally hundreds of ways small and hard to detect shifts like that could produce a measurable shift in the demographics when dealing with millions of people over the course of decades.


Jim

[Sparko]

Doesn't matter if I would or not because your analogy is not an equivalency with the discussion with Sam and how it has been twisted. Pix said real estate listings eliminated the opportunity for racial bias. That is an all inclusive absolute statement, and it simply isn't true -

She never said that.

Here is the start of the conversation:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post666920

To which Sam replied:

Online real estate listing companies, thankfully, don't have their heads in the sand when it comes to housing discrimination.

Possibly because they built the algorithms that create the search results we all look at and recognize that algorithms can be racist, too.

--Sam

So right off the bat Sam started arguing that the search engines were likely racist.

[Sparko]

That experiment may or may not reveal the problem pix. The only way to do a meaningful test would be to do thousands of searches from thousands of different locations using different types of computers and software, averaging and analyzing the full results from each search. Some little anecdotal test you or I could do at home would only reveal massively obvious problems that would have already been sued or prosecuted. For example, lets suppose that 24 out 25 searches from locations that vary by demographics are identical. But that 1 out of 25 difference could results in a 4% shift in outcome and if that shift is negatively affecting people searching from black areas of town but who would notice just pecking at a keyboard? But in the end, 4% more black searchers would be directed away from some 'better' property. And that would show up in housing statistics involving the entire country.

And maybe the shift involves the use of different browsers, or different computer hardware that happens to be favored by one demographic or the other - or that just happens to respond faster to the results. It could be as simple as different internet access speeds in different areas affected by poorer facilities or off-brand carriers that influence timing on the search engines.

There are literally hundreds of ways small and hard to detect shifts like that could produce a measurable shift in the demographics when dealing with millions of people over the course of decades.


Jim

Again, you are asking her to prove something you have yet to show evidence for even happening and when pressed, Sam claims he never said it did.

So maybe, before you assume the real estate sites are racist, you should be the one with some evidence?

The default is that they are not. Obviously not, by actually using them. Zero indication that they are racist. Nada, none.

[lilpixieofterror]

That experiment may or may not reveal the problem pix. The only way to do a meaningful test would be to do thousands of searches from thousands of different locations using different types of computers and software, averaging and analyzing the full results from each search. Some little anecdotal test you or I could do at home would only reveal massively obvious problems that would have already been sued or prosecuted. For example, lets suppose that 24 out 25 searches from locations that vary by demographics are identical. But that 1 out of 25 difference could results in a 4% shift in outcome and if that shift is negatively affecting people searching from black areas of town but who would notice just pecking at a keyboard? But in the end, 4% more black searchers would be directed away from some 'better' property. And that would show up in housing statistics involving the entire country.

And maybe the shift involves the use of different browsers, or different computer hardware that happens to be favored by one demographic or the other - or that just happens to respond faster to the results. It could be as simple as different internet access speeds in different areas affected by poorer facilities or off-brand carriers that influence timing on the search engines.

There are literally hundreds of ways small and hard to detect shifts like that could produce a measurable shift in the demographics when dealing with millions of people over the course of decades.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Why does the only solution to a disagreement have to resolve to something wrong with the other PERSON. Why can't you just discuss what you think is wrong with the IDEA?

You didn't process what I wrote pix. Nothing you bring up in this response provides any meaningful rebuttal of the point made.

Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

Why does the only solution to a disagreement have to resolve to something wrong with the other PERSON. Why can't you just discuss what you think is wrong with the IDEA?

Ironic, coming from the same person that spends his days complaining about everyone else.

You didn't process what I wrote pix. Nothing you bring up in this response provides any meaningful rebuttal of the point made.

[oxmixmudd]

Ironic, coming from the same person that spends his days complaining about everyone else.

Ironic, coming from the person whose every post is an attack on the person she's replying to.

I processed it just fine. I simply have found absolutely no evidence to support a possibility that popular online real estate and apartments search sites, give racist search results.

I don't think you did. The very fact you wrote your second sentence implies you didn't understand my point at all.


I'm not obsessed with finding racism everywhere. But I am opposed to racism, and neither am I willing to cover it up or excuse it where it is found.

Pix - exactly - you have no idea. The point was you claimed racial bias is ELIMINATED by using such tools. That claim can't be substantiated. And I gave you several examples of how, without there being anything explicit in the code to create bias, bias can still occur.

The only bit I have in this specific fight over real estate searches is how you've twisted Sam's replies to mean something they don't. I don't personally tend to think there is anything explicitly in the search engines trying to bias search results demographically. But the point is there could be both explicit and implicit biases in how those engines work, and you are saying there CAN'T be because of how they work - which implies a lack of understanding of how subtle some of these things can be.

My primary point and the thing I am invested in is the fact that the raw data shows our African American population lives below in almost every way the white population, which shows that our society still suffers from the legacy of all the years of slavery and overt racism that have preceded and prepared the present day stage to sustain that difference. Showing that we still have work to do to correct the problem.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Again, you are asking her to prove something you have yet to show evidence for even happening and when pressed, Sam claims he never said it did.

So maybe, before you assume the real estate sites are racist, you should be the one with some evidence?

The default is that they are not. Obviously not, by actually using them. Zero indication that they are racist. Nada, none.

Now you're playing the twisting game on me. I never said nor have I assumed that the real estate sites are racist. I've only said that it is possible for bias to exist in the search algorithms, both explicit and implicit.

Do you understand the difference between

1) Real estate searches are biased demographically

and

2) It is possible for Real estate searches to contain biases both explicit and implicit.

They are not even remotely the same thing Sparko. But 2) does serve as a sufficient rebuttal for the claim that "internet searches eliminate the possibility of racial bias".


The only claim I ever responded to was the claim that the use of web searches eliminated the possibility of racial bias. And yet, here you are, waltzing off implying I'm assuming they are biased. Imagine that, not only is my observation that you twisted Sam's point correct, here you are in the span of just a few posts twisting my statements in the very same way.




Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

Ironic, coming from the person whose every post is an attack on the person she's replying to.

Do you want to be the pot or the kettle?

I don't think you did. The very fact you wrote your second sentence implies you didn't understand my point at all.

I'm not obsessed with finding racism everywhere. But I am opposed to racism, and neither am I willing to cover it up or excuse it where it is found.

Pix - exactly - you have no idea. The point was you claimed racial bias is ELIMINATED by using such tools. That claim can't be substantiated. And I gave you several examples of how, without there being anything explicit in the code to create bias, bias can still occur.

The only bit I have in this specific fight over real estate searches is how you've twisted Sam's replies to mean something they don't. I don't personally tend to think there is anything explicitly in the search engines trying to bias search results demographically. But the point is there could be both explicit and implicit biases in how those engines work, and you are saying there CAN'T be because of how they work - which implies a lack of understanding of how subtle some of these things can be.

My primary point and the thing I am invested in is the fact that the raw data shows our African American population lives below in almost every way the white population, which shows that our society still suffers from the legacy of all the years of slavery and overt racism that have preceded and prepared the present day stage to sustain that difference. Showing that we still have work to do to correct the problem.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Do you want to be the pot or the kettle?

No pix, I've been very careful about this the last little while exactly because of what you are doing right here, right now. You and many others tend to claim they've been attacked personally when they have simply been responded to AFTER they attacked the other person.

That statement is where you crossed from a discussion of the idea of racism and where it might be found or how it can be hard to avoid to an attack on the person. And it's all you pix. None of my replies to you in this thread prior attack your integrity or your motives.


So you admit - albeit backhandedly - I had a point. But I guess I was bad to make the point - is that what you are saying? Implicit racism is the point here. Elements of our society that are hard to see because we are immersed in it IS the point pix.

It doesn't have to be 'almost all'. And more black people ARE poor - that is a simple fact.

If those elements interact in such a way as to produce bias against people that are black then it is still part of the problem, regardless of whether it is intentional or not. A LOT of what holds black people back is not intentional racism on the part of white people today, it is the raw inertia of a society that is the product of hundreds of years of slavery followed by over 100 years of intentional racism so that our society has racism built into its very fabric and only intentional actions by both sides can undo that. But the group that has inherited the power side of the equation is the one that has the most power to change things. The subjugated group has much less power to make the change, and by not recognizing that and taking active steps to change things, we participate in the racism and slavery of the past. A society looking the other way and allowing the disparity to exist is, in fact, an act of racism by that society.


Again - if the poorer people get typically inferior internet service because of where they live, and a larger percentage of the poor population is black, then more black people get inferior internet service than whites and that influences - in this case - web search results. This is how implicit bias works pix. This is how we have racism built into the fabric of our society and why it is important for the ones inheriting the power position to actively work to change those aspects of our society that perpetuate the inequity that exists.

I did? Give the exact quote where I said that. See, what I have actually said is technology makes it a lot harder to hide listings and racially profile people so a real estate agent can make sure to only show blacks houses in black areas. Online mortgage lenders also help in giving a consumer choices and again, making it harder to lock qualified applicants to geographic areas due to their race. See, my actually argument is technology makes it harder for a racist to stick black families into geographic areas, not that all racism is eliminated from the equation.

You are correct. I was trusting the quotes around the statement in a post by sam to be a literal quote of your words, when actually they are a quote of how he interpreted your words. So that is my mistake.

What you actually said was:

So that was interpreted as you saying using internet searches 'eliminates bias' - which is not an unreasonable implication given you are at that point slamming the example I gave of racial bias evidenced by my own real estate agent. Nevertheless, you never used the phrase 'eliminate racial bias' to describe internet real estate searches.


Well, the point pix is that race - if you are African American - is a significant negative factor. An inequity we have the capability of changing, and a moral responsibility to change. Racism is a scourge on our society, an element ingrained into our culture in many different ways - some obvious like the continued existence of the KKK - others not so much. The bottom line though is that African Americans face far more obstacles to success that White Americans - ON AVERAGE. And that means we are still a racist society and we still have work to do to see Martin Luther King's 'I have a dream' realized.


Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

No pix, I've been very careful about this the last little while exactly because of what you are doing right here, right now. You and many others tend to claim they've been attacked personally when they have simply been responded to AFTER they attacked the other person.



That statement is where you crossed from a discussion of the idea of racism and where it might be found or how it can be hard to avoid to an attack on the person. And it's all you pix. None of my replies to you in this thread prior attack your integrity or your motives.




So you admit - albeit backhandedly - I had a point. But I guess I was bad to make the point - is that what you are saying? Implicit racism is the point here. Elements of our society that are hard to see because we are immersed in it IS the point pix.



It doesn't have to be 'almost all'. And more black people ARE poor - that is a simple fact.

If those elements interact in such a way as to produce bias against people that are black then it is still part of the problem, regardless of whether it is intentional or not. A LOT of what holds black people back is not intentional racism on the part of white people today, it is the raw inertia of a society that is the product of hundreds of years of slavery followed by over 100 years of intentional racism so that our society has racism built into its very fabric and only intentional actions by both sides can undo that. But the group that has inherited the power side of the equation is the one that has the most power to change things. The subjugated group has much less power to make the change, and by not recognizing that and taking active steps to change things, we participate in the racism and slavery of the past. A society looking the other way and allowing the disparity to exist is, in fact, an act of racism by that society.




Again - if the poorer people get typically inferior internet service because of where they live, and a larger percentage of the poor population is black, then more black people get inferior internet service than whites and that influences - in this case - web search results. This is how implicit bias works pix. This is how we have racism built into the fabric of our society and why it is important for the ones inheriting the power position to actively work to change those aspects of our society that perpetuate the inequity that exists.





You are correct. I was trusting the quotes around the statement in a post by sam to be a literal quote of your words, when actually they are a quote of how he interpreted your words. So that is my mistake.

What you actually said was:



So that was interpreted as you saying using internet searches 'eliminates bias' - which is not an unreasonable implication given you are at that point slamming the example I gave of racial bias evidenced by my own real estate agent. Nevertheless, you never used the phrase 'eliminate racial bias' to describe internet real estate searches.




Well, the point pix is that race - if you are African American - is a significant negative factor. An inequity we have the capability of changing, and a moral responsibility to change. Racism is a scourge on our society, an element ingrained into our culture in many different ways - some obvious like the continued existence of the KKK - others not so much. The bottom line though is that African Americans face far more obstacles to success that White Americans - ON AVERAGE. And that means we are still a racist society and we still have work to do to see Martin Luther King's 'I have a dream' realized.


Jim

[Mountain Man]

Honestly, the only evidence of racism I've seen in my lifetime is from liberals (and those who share their ideals) who are desperate to keep it alive.

[oxmixmudd]

No pix. That is not my logic nor am I trying to make everything racist. But there are still stark racial divides that will not be easy to fix, especially with people like you who refuse to acknowledge they exist and who will jot accept any responsibility to try to fix them.

There you go again, off the rails and impunig my motives, not addeessing the ideas ...

The KKK is but the tip of the iceberg in terms of the internet driven resurgence of the various forms of white nationalist/neo nazi groups and ideas. The current rise of the alt right and a president that often defers to such groups being a large part of that resurgence in the last 5 years.

Source: abc news

The number of hate groups in the U.S. has reached an all-time high, even as membership in the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazi outfits have fallen, according to a report by a legal advocacy organization that tracks them.

The Southern Poverty Law Center's annual "Year in Hate and Extremism" report counted 1,020 hate groups in the nation, an increase of 7 percent from the 954 tallied in 2017.

© Copyright Original Source

This doesn't count those in the shadows of the internet absorbing and accepting the ideas for themselves without actually joining any official group.

I go to work everyday with people of every race, sex, sexual preference, religious belief, etc and guess what? We do our jobs. Racism is dying, rather you choose to believe it or not.

As do I. And yet the number of African Americans that work where I do in strong technical positions is a good bit lower than their population percentage, even though I can observe every effort being made to implement strong EEO policies.

As I have said all along, you can give all the anecdotal evidence you want, the data, the statistics show there is still a significant disadvantage to being black in this country. And if we turn a blind eye to that difference, then we are participating with the history that produced the situation.

Consider the parable of the Good Samaritan. Did any of the other folks walking by actively DO anything to create more hurt to the fellow beaten by the robbers? Of course not. But just walking by and observing the problem gave them a moral obligation not merely to avoid making things worse, but to actually do something to make it better. To be a neighbor, to live up to what mercy requires, they would have needed to take the risk and make the sacrifices required to help like the Samaritan did.

The hard fact is, the racial divide is still here. There are still perverse and racist elements which unfortunately have and are seeing resurgence, and it is still, on average, a significant disadvantage to be born black in this country. And since our history of slavery and racism created that often self perpetuating difference, we as a country, as a people, have a responsibility to take the necessary steps to correct those problems as much as is possible.

Jim