[blackshoe]

 GreenMan, on 2013-July-01, 08:46, said:

Don't change the subject.

I didn't.

[ArtK78]

 cherdano, on 2013-June-30, 05:54, said:

So I am pretty ignorant about this. But to me, it always seemed like on the merit, most of these groups (progressive or conservative) complaining about extra scrutiny should have had their applications rejected? These were all political organizations pretending to be social welfare organizations.

Probably true.

A significant portion of the Form 1023 delves into whether the organization intends to support or oppose candidates for public office. If the answer is yes, there are many follow-up questions. As political campaigning is essentially prohibited for tax exempt organizations, many of these applications do merit significant scrutiny and will often have their applications denied.

That is not to say that all political activity is prohibited by tax exempt organizations. But it is very limited.

By the way, fhe Form 1023 is the application for recognition for exemption for Section 501(c )(3) organizations - organizations which can accept tax deductible contributions. There are other organizations formed under other provisions of the Internal Revenue Code - primarily under Section 501(c )(4) - which are also tax exempt, in that the contributions they receive and any earnings on their funds are exempt from tax, but the contributions to such organizations are not deductible. These organizations apply for their tax exempt status by submitting Form 1024, not Form 1023. And many of the so-called "Super Pacs" made famous in part by Stephen Colbert are 501(c )(4) organizations. 501(c )(4) organizations are much less restricted in their operations, and their political activities, than 501(c )(3) organizations.

[Note the extra space in the (c ). Without the extra space, the (c ) becomes ©. There may be a way to override this, but I don't have the time to find out what it is.]

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2013-July-01, 00:26, said:

Yes, I've heard of "driving while black". So? That's a kind of profiling that should be quashed. OTOH when the police get a report that some black person committed a crime should they, in looking for him, stop and question everyone, white or black, to see if he's the perpetrator?

That's not racial profiling. If the report said that the suspect had blond hair, it wouldn't be "hair color profiling" to stop only blonds.

Racial profiling is when you give extra scrutiny to particular races absent any specific evidence regarding race. Like the bicycle stunt, or TSA searching people who look Middle-Eastern, or police randomly stopping DWBs.

But my point is that while these things may be racist, they're also likely to be more effective. Black people aren't genetically predisposed to be criminals, but for historical reasons, in our society they're more likely to have grown up in an environment that produces criminals. It's Baysian probability -- when you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras, unless you're on an African savannah.

I think studies have shown that even black people are more suspicious of black people than they are of white people.

[cherdano]

Studies have also shown that African-Americans are just as likely to use illegal drugs. Yet they are several times as likely to spend time in jail for it.
Barmar's comment would make sense in a vacuum. In this context, it sounds rather ignorant at best.

[barmar]

 cherdano, on 2013-July-01, 09:36, said:

Studies have also shown that African-Americans are just as likely to use illegal drugs. Yet they are several times as likely to spend time in jail for it.
Barmar's comment would make sense in a vacuum. In this context, it sounds rather ignorant at best.

Yes, I know about this. Is that still true if you control for other effects? For instance, is there as much a difference if you only compare people who live in the suburbs? What about income levels (whites are more likely to be able to afford better lawyers)?

I'm sure there's still a bias (juries are more likely to convict black defendants), but I'll bet it's not as pronounced.

[GreenMan]

 barmar, on 2013-July-01, 09:46, said:

Yes, I know about this. Is that still true if you control for other effects? For instance, is there as much a difference if you only compare people who live in the suburbs? What about income levels (whites are more likely to be able to afford better lawyers)?

I'm sure there's still a bias (juries are more likely to convict black defendants), but I'll bet it's not as pronounced.

This may not address your point directly (I'm short of time so cutting some cognitive corners), but tons of studies have found that white and black people get treated differently in situations where people's judgment is involved -- getting car loans, house hunting with a real estate agent, etc. -- even if their clothing and supporting information such as finances are identical. Similar effects have been found in news media. So it appears you can control anything you like and a racial bias persists.

[ArtK78]

Funny thing, sometimes the bias works the other way.

About 10 years ago, my (now ex-)wife and I sued her OB/GYN doctors for malpractice. I won't go into the details, but shortly after the birth of our youngest child she nearly died and was in a medically-induced coma for 4 weeks.

The case was heard in Philadelphia. The jury consisted of two well educated middle-to-upper class jurors and 10 less educated lower-to-middle class jurors. I won't go into the racial mix of the jurors, but you may be able to tell from the foregoing. After a 10 day trial, the jury found 10-2 against us. We polled the jury, and the more educated members of the jury voted in our favor. In a civil case in Pennsylvania, it takes the vote of at least 10 out of the 12 jurors for a verdict.

The defense attorneys for the doctors made a big deal about my wife and I living in Cherry Hill NJ (a well known affluent suburb of Philadelphia) and my being an attorney in a well-known law firm. The fact that his clients were doctors did not seem to be an issue, and our attorney certainly was not going to make it one.

As for the merits of the case, they were overwhelmingly in our favor. One of the doctors in the medical group actually admitted on the witness stand that he did not know how to identify and diagnose sepsis, which is what nearly killed my wife on his watch.

[barmar]

 GreenMan, on 2013-July-01, 12:33, said:

This may not address your point directly (I'm short of time so cutting some cognitive corners), but tons of studies have found that white and black people get treated differently in situations where people's judgment is involved -- getting car loans, house hunting with a real estate agent, etc. -- even if their clothing and supporting information such as finances are identical.

Other studies have also found disparities between fat and skinny people, ugly and attractive people, tall and short people, men and women, etc. Human nature is full of biases.

But biases are not necessarily wrong. I went to high school in an upper middle class town that's predominantly white. The neighboring town is working class, and has a large black population (I don't know if it's the majority, but significantly higher than my town), and they shared our school district. Gang membership and gun violence were bigger problems in the poor town than my town. So by simple probability, if you saw a black kid in school, it was more likely that they came from the other town and might be in a gang. Being more careful around them may have been racist, but it was also rational. While it's possible that a white kid could be from that town, you can't live your life being afraid of everyone. So you play the odds: whites are more likely to be from the good neighborhood, blacks are more likely to be from the bad one.

[billw55]

I'm not sure what to think barmar.

[cherdano]

 barmar, on 2013-July-01, 12:48, said:

But biases are not necessarily wrong.

Sorry. BIASES THAT RESULT IN A INCARCERATION RATE FOR DRUG OFFENSES THAT IS MORE THAN 5 TIMES AS HIGHER FOR BLACK MALES THAN FOR WHITE MALES (WHITE BEING JUST AS LIKELY TO USE DRUGS) IS WRONG, VERY WRONG.

If you can't see that, I can't help you. And I may no longer be able to resort to the charitable explanation of "ignorant" as the best explanations for your posts.

[ArtK78]

If I can try to help out Barmar in this instance.

Biases backed up by experience and common sense in the living of one's own life may not be wrong. I don't know about you, but I am not walking the streets of North Philadelphia at night by myself.

Biases in the justice system and other governmental operations are per se wrong.

The distinction is the ramifications that follow from acting on or ignoring the biases.

[GreenMan]

 barmar, on 2013-July-01, 09:28, said:

But my point is that while these things may be racist, they're also likely to be more effective. Black people aren't genetically predisposed to be criminals, but for historical reasons, in our society they're more likely to have grown up in an environment that produces criminals. It's Baysian probability -- when you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras, unless you're on an African savannah.

I think you're doing Bayes wrong.

The statement "Black people are more likely to be criminals" is qualitatively different from "Criminals are more likely to be black people." The first, for reasons such as those you state, is true, but your horse-zebra argument is based on the second, which probably is not.

[cherdano]

 ArtK78, on 2013-July-01, 14:05, said:

If I can try to help out Barmar in this instance.

Biases backed up by experience and common sense in the living of one's own life may not be wrong. I don't know about you, but I am not walking the streets of North Philadelphia at night by myself.

Biases in the justice system and other governmental operations are per se wrong.

The distinction is the ramifications that follow from acting on or ignoring the biases.

I am not sure you are helping barmar out by pointing out the difference between your (totally defensible) view and barmar's (totally indefensible) position. Unless barmar can clarify and he doesn't really think that letting everyone's biases lead to more black males in prison than in college, mostly due to non-violent drug offenses.

http://www.drugwarfa...Race_and_Prison

[Scarabin]

If we strip away the restrictions of political correctness this becomes an argument of extremes. Clearly, at least to an outsider's view, employing stereotype profiling in one's own defense is no more than basic common sense and Barmar is completely correct. At the other extreme if stereotype profiling debars someone from obtaining justice,this is appallingly wrong, but I suspect the system has to be flawed to render this possible.

[barmar]

Since justice is meted out by human beings, and humans are naturally biased (for good reasons -- stereotypes are how we make sense of the world), it's hard to see how we can obliterate bias in the justice system. We can try to reduce it, but we're only human.

I'm not saying that all stereotypes are justified. When Europeans and Americans first started enslaving Africans, they thought they were a more primitive race because their technology wasn't as advanced (they seemed to live like savages in comparison). They were simply wrong, and the slavery that resulted from this was horrible. There are still some racists who think that blacks are inherently inferior, they're also wrong.

But I don't think my biases are based on any inherent traits of blacks, but rather the cultural issues that resulted from that history. Blacks have had less access to good education, and have often been concentrated in ghettos where crime and violence was rampant. As wrong as it may have been, it happened, and you can't just ignore the differences that result. We can try to make things better, and things have indeed improved, but there's still a long way to go.

It may be the case that my wariness regarding blacks is not in proper proportion to current statistics. Another facet of human nature is that we're very bad at estimating probabilities from statistics. We almost always tend towards the extremes. We don't know what to do when the weatherman says 60% chance of rain -- we just want to know "should I take an umbrella or not". Risk-aversion can even push us over the line -- if the weatherman says only 40% chance of rain, many will grab an umbrella just in case (better safe than sorry).

I wish this all weren't the case, and I'm really sorry that it results in such extreme biases in the justice system. I'm just not sure what how much can do about it, since the root causes are based on true statistics. If you have limited police resources, and want to put them where the most crime is occurring, that will often mean putting them in black neighborhoods.

[cherdano]

Barry, if you really think a summary of rational biases could explain the fact that a black male is 5-7 times as likely to be convicted to jail time for non-violent drug use, while being just as likely to commit drug use, then that is very surprising.


It is even more surprising given that you are very well-informed and intelligent. From where I am at, the most likely explanation is that you always had a strong pre-disposed bias when thinking about such issues.

ETA: I wish there was a word analogous to 'sexism' to describe this sort of bias. Just replacing 'sex' by the analogue in our discussion is obviously not quite the correct word, as it implies evil intention, and is too judgemental.

[GreenMan]

 cherdano, on 2013-July-02, 17:27, said:

ETA: I wish there was a word analogous to 'sexism' to describe this sort of bias. Just replacing 'sex' by the analogue in our discussion is obviously not quite the correct word, as it implies evil intention, and is too judgemental.

Most racism is unintentional, and the person often is unaware of it; same with sexism. You spend your formative years in the majority culture absorbing the majority's view of various minorities, no matter how far from reality it is, and you reflect it and pass it along. Gotta call it what it is; no credit for "not-really-racism" here. Because the source and effects are the same.

[GreenMan]

Annd don't let's forget that this started as a discussion not of where police resources should be deployed but of how individuals are treated. Talking about putting more cops in high-crime neighborhoods is changing the subject. The original question was, from a crowd of people (in an airport line, walking down the street, whatever), should the authorities direct their attention at people who behave in certain ways, or people who look certain ways? Way too many people with badges or other forms of power are doing it the second way.

[barmar]

 cherdano, on 2013-July-02, 17:27, said:

Barry, if you really think a summary of rational biases could explain the fact that a black male is 5-7 times as likely to be convicted to jail time for non-violent drug use, while being just as likely to commit drug use, then that is very surprising.

OK, I'll admit that my explanations don't address that level of bias. I was mainly just addressing the more day-to-day biases that people have, like feeling more wary if the person walking behind them on the street is black than white.

Remember, the reason I brought this up was because this thread is about the IRS scandal -- why it's logical to give more scrutiny to some people/organizations than others, even if it seems unfair.

[barmar]

I was thinking a little more about this while I was at lunch. In all these situations, what we have is a case where individual actions may be reasonable, but in the aggregate you end up with bad results. So I may be justified in be more on guard if I see a black man in a mostly white neighborhood, but when everybody is like this we end up with a culture of fear based on racism. Blackshoe may justifiably feel the need to own a gun to protect himself, but when too many people do that we end up with more accidents than protection.

This is a hard problem to solve, because you can't point to any particular action that was seriously wrong.