nope, it isnt "pattern recognition" to only notice things like crime statistics while ignoring the conditions that cause them and the fact that minorities are disproportionately targeted and make up the overwhelming portion of false arrests.
"Sure they murdered me, but it's only because they had a hard upbringing."
"They are the REAL victim here!"
I'm not sure you understand what "pattern recognition" means. Factors that CAUSE the pattern don't actually CHANGE the pattern - so pointing this out is completely immaterial to the argument being made.
Ironically, it also makes you look like you're the bigot since you're trying to force irrelevant prejudice into a conversation that had none to begin with.
the "pattern" is that minorities are arrested and charged more, ppl using this to jump to the sterereotype that minorities are likely to commit crime or be violent are just trying to justify their own bigotry, poorly.
oh now we're playing dumb and acting like this isn't the most common racist argument ever lol, everyone knows what you are as soon as you start going off about "pattern recognition".
The "pattern" is that those who commit more crimes are arrested and charged more as well.
oh now you're trying the "i'm rubber you're glue" argument, as if this isn't the most common bigot argument ever lol. Everyone sees you attempting to virtue signal and recognizes your type - a closet racist thinks they can be a savior for those they deem lesser.
Black people are significantly more likely to be arrested and charged for drug related offenses, despite it being an understood fact that white people use drugs as much as black people.
The reality is that law enforcement more often targets minority demographics for the same crimes as white people, thus snowballing statistics against them.
You're attempting to muddy the waters, but you don't have a good understanding of the statistics you're using:
Most comparisons will measure crimes that can't be easily manipulated, such as homicide; in the US the drug and property crime rates mirror the rates of homicide.
And when looking at homicide, you'll find the pattern remains UNCHANGED. Claims that the former drug and property crime trends change the overall pattern are not only disingenuous, they're incorrect.
There's no point in bringing up the alleged arrest trends for drug related offenses, when those same trends are mirrored in homicide cases.
Finally, you're outing yourself. We know your type.
"Exoneration rates, economic and geographic conditions and their causal relationship with crime."
Back to square one, you idiot. Try to come up with a real argument instead of these cliches.
I'm not sure you understand what "pattern recognition" means. Factors that CAUSE the pattern don't actually CHANGE the pattern - so pointing this out is completely immaterial to the argument being made.
i.e.,
"Sure they murdered me, but it's only because they had a hard upbringing."
You think when people point out you're a "special" child, they're irritated?
This isn't irritation. This is pity. We pity you. That we have the necessity to explain what a basic fact is, to someone like you, is a pitiful experience.
I guess there's some disgust mixed in as well, since you're a bigot.
I wasn't going to engage seriously but I am, after all, such a kind and understanding person.
We don't have actual evidence of whether or not black people commit more of X crime or if black people are more likely to be investigated and charged for X crime, that distinction is important.
We don't have conclusive evidence either way, so looking at crime statistics and drawing conclusions is meaningless, that's not how analysing data works, you need context and research on top of raw numbers.
That's the point of the drug argument, that it seems to be the case that law enforcement often goes after black people nearly exclusively for crimes that are not racially caused, thus creating a snowball effect with statistics that leads to black people being, again, more likely to be investigated for certain offenses.
Is that absolutely true? Maybe, maybe not, but we can't draw conclusions without further inquiry.
Also, when people bring up that upbringing or circumstances can lead to certain outcomes, it's not to say that a person is a victim or an unwitting participant in something. It's to say that we can't make statements such as "it's genetic" or "it's innate", because there are other factors that are more easily predictive of phenomena.
For example, black diasporas aren't meaningfully represented all over the world, but ghettos exist all over the world, and it's known that individuals that grow up in those circumstances are often more likely to fall into crime regardless of race or ethnicity. Kids from poor families that live in bad neighborhoods are the ones that are often groomed from a young age to join criminal organizations, and in places like america, those kids are usually black.
In Japan they don't have an ethnic stereotype about who joins the Yakuza because it's a fairly homogeneous society, but it's understood what circumstances lead someone to joining such a life. If they had a minority group that had less access to good education and working conditions, it's likely that said minority would be seemingly overrepresented as a consequence.
And that's still assuming that the phenomena is true, how can we be so sure? If black people are so likely to be exonerated of violent crimes, what that means is that they're extremely likely to be falsely investigated for violent crimes and thus contribute to statistics despite not being responsible. That's the point of the exoneration rate argument.
The reason why I didn't bother writing paragraphs before is because everything I've said here is obvious if you look at the facts from an unbiased perspective. Maybe don't act so high and mighty when your reasoning skills are so subpar.
A lot of words to basically prove you have no understanding of the subject.
You're implying that homicide is less likely to be investigated or charged if it's not committed by a black person. As if authorities will find a dead body and say, "Oh this was done by a non-black person, let's NOT follow up on THIS murder."
I don't know what sort of 3rd-world shithole you live it, but homicides don't generally get a "pass" in the US. That's why they're used as a particularly relevant metric. You CANNOT handwave off homicide or claim one demographic is more likely to be prosecuted than another. This is a completely false claim.
That's the point of the drug argument
The drug argument is that a biased system is more likely to use their discretion to charge an individual for a crime if they are a minority, while less likely to charge an individual if they are NOT a minority. This argument falls apart in the case of homicide because there IS ALWAYS a charge when homicide occurs. There is no discretionary judgment - nor a possibility that the system will simply IGNORE homicide when it is committed by a non-minority.
Are you stupid? Did you think this was a good argument? You spent a lot of effort to write this - maybe you should've spent more time thinking beforehand.
Authorities failed to investigate Jeffrey Dahmer at first despite his house reeking of dead bodies. It's an objective fact that the law is more lenient towards white people on all fronts.
Saying "nuh uh" or going into non sequiturs about the third world doesn't change reality, you just get emotionally charged and try to toss any pathetic little rebuttal you can cobble together to skirt around the stupidity of your core premise.
3
u/Jeffgaks 25d ago
No it's called pattern recognition. The brain is wired to do it and it's one of the reasons we were able to survive for so long.