11–20 of 36 posts
Maybe I'm tripping and quasi-government surveillance entities funded by crypto-millionaires is okay as long as we can stop the looting.
Might be an unpopular opinion, but if I owned a business that provided for my employees and my family in the area where these disturbances* were occurring and had cameras, you bet I’d be trying to get access to those feeds to the police that I pay to protect the law-abiding citizens of the area. Same story if I had cameras covering the Jan 6th, 2021 events. * - I’m trying to use as neutral language as possible.
There's a framing problem here, on both sides. Notice how the EFF article starts off talking about how the recently enacted ordinance requires the police to get pre-approval permission to use facial recognition. But all that actually happened was the policed looked at live CCD footage from cameras not on the pre-approved list. The article is framing the debate by making the rules seem reasonable and the police seem sinister.
At the same time, presumably the reason you felt the need to qualify "disturbance" is because you recognize that on the other side of the debate are people who try to frame these protests in a negative light, with an insinuation (if not explicit assertion) that they inevitably descend into looting and violence.
Neither narrative is realistic, though in San Francisco the former group absolutely controls the narrative, and likes to play off the counter-framing about inevitable violence. In any event, there's no real debate here: just FUD on both sides.
When several weeks ago Mayor Breed said that the 2019 ordinance needed reforming, one of the drafters wrote an op-ed that said there's no need for it; that it doesn't restrict the police in any meaningfully way, and Breed's claim were groundless. That op-ed likewise tossed around the specter of facial recognition. But not once did they address the most obvious issue, which is that the police are severely limited in their ability to perform real-time surveillance of spontaneous and fluid situations, such as peaceful protests, riots, etc. The 2019 and earlier ordinances basically presume a context of continuous, 24 hour surveillance, access thereto, or after-the-fact evidence gathering. For example, requests to put up cameras on corners with high rates of crime or to deploy license plate scanners on patrol cars.
Activists on the left have lost all credibility, trailing right behind the right. Even the EFF has gone too far. The debate has become unhinged. It's become so adversarial that nobody even tries address the legitimate concerns of the other side, and facts simply take a back seat. There aren't any adults in the room. Perhaps that's because there isn't a room anymore--the entire conversation, even among the elected and professional classes (scholars, journalists, etc), has shifted over to social media, where success simply equates to spreading your memes (i.e. narratives, baseline assumptions, [poor] statistics, etc).
Might be an unpopular opinion, but if I owned a business that provided for my employees and my family in the area where these disturbances* were occurring and had cameras, you bet I’d be trying to get access to those feeds to the police that I pay to protect the law-abiding citizens of the area. Same story if I had cameras covering the Jan 6th, 2021 events. * - I’m trying to use as neutral language as possible.
> I’m trying to use as neutral language as possible There's a framing problem here, on both sides. Notice how the EFF article starts off talking about how the recently enacted ordinance requires the police to get pre-approval permission to use facial recognition. But all that actually happened was the policed looked at live CCD footage from cameras not on the pre-approved list. The article is framing the debate by ma…
I definitely agree with everything that you wrote but real-time continuous facial recognition is going to be here sooner rather than later. In the context of reforming this ordinance, it makes sense to just assume it's available. To me anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ethnic “activists,” especially in the upper echelons, are often socialized into white-dominated institutions such as universities, and largely reflect the views of the highly educated whites in their circle. Note the tell—just 3% of Hispanics and Latinos would describe their group using the term “Latinx.” https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in... . Many actively dislike being called that: https:…
...just 3% of Hispanics and Latinos would describe their group using the term “Latinx.” It's a great neologism; mispronounced (identically) in both Spanish and English! I said this word twice before I was strongly encouraged not to do so by those it theoretically describes.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/01/07/168818064...
>The University of Wisconsin uses it this way in the official name for its Department of Latin@ and Chican@ Studies. Karma Chavez, a professor there, said that the push toward gender neutrality in Spanish has been going on for decades.
>OK, but how would you actually say it aloud?
>"Well, this is where things get complicated," Chavez said. "Most people end up just saying Chicano and Chicana."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...just 3% of Hispanics and Latinos would describe their group using the term “Latinx.” It's a great neologism; mispronounced (identically) in both Spanish and English! I said this word twice before I was strongly encouraged not to do so by those it theoretically describes.
https://tulanehullabaloo.com/57213/intersections/opinion-lat...
I’m not opposed to “identity politics”—but I think as it’s practiced in America it’s often parasitic. Activists—often in league with white elites—trade on the group’s political capital to advance views that are unrelated to or may be directly opposed to the interests of the group. It’s morally wrong to use a minority group’s political capital for ends that aren’t aligned with what the group wants.
For example, in the context of this article: Hispanics are more supportive of increased policing than whites: https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/562738-pol.... Over the years surveys have shown this repeatedly: the majority supported stop and frisk in NYC when it existed; they were the least supportive of ending mandatory minimums, etc. Couching anti-police activism in terms of what “Latinx” or “brown” people want is just putting ethnic window dressing on white progressivism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...just 3% of Hispanics and Latinos would describe their group using the term “Latinx.” It's a great neologism; mispronounced (identically) in both Spanish and English! I said this word twice before I was strongly encouraged not to do so by those it theoretically describes.
Better yet is its replacement, "Latin@", which can not be pronounced at all. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/01/07/168818064... >The University of Wisconsin uses it this way in the official name for its Department of Latin@ and Chican@ Studies. Karma Chavez, a professor there, said that the push toward gender neutrality in Spanish has been going on for decades. >OK, but how would you actually say it alou…
I love it when NPR segues to an ethnic studies professor to present the “POC view.” Professor Chavez attained tenure by winning the favor of the University of Wisconsin faculty—which, outside the engineering department, has got to be one of the whitest group of people in the country apart from NPR management.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://tulanehullabaloo.com/57213/intersections/opinion-lat...
“Latine” suffers from the same problem, which is that it’s mainly driven by the concerns and politics of highly educated white people, along with the small fraction of minorities who rely on highly educated white people for jobs, platforms, etc. The overwhelming majority of Hispanics speak a gendered language, think that’s fine, and don’t see a problem that needs solving. I’m not opposed to “identity politics”—but I…
"As Black and Latinx activists, we are outraged—but not surprised—by rich and powerful people supporting illegal police surveillance. " I'm kind of surprised that these neighborhoods don't want cameras TO be monitored / available to police - they are the center of relative high levels of criminal activity. During these peaceful protests I think something like 30 business were looted or destroyed in the union square a…
Seriously, who say Latinx? We talk now about Withex, Axians or Blacus?
Might be an unpopular opinion, but if I owned a business that provided for my employees and my family in the area where these disturbances* were occurring and had cameras, you bet I’d be trying to get access to those feeds to the police that I pay to protect the law-abiding citizens of the area. Same story if I had cameras covering the Jan 6th, 2021 events. * - I’m trying to use as neutral language as possible.
The police simply has to get pre-approved before they can monitor live cameras but they did so without pre-approval.
"As Black and Latinx activists, we are outraged—but not surprised—by rich and powerful people supporting illegal police surveillance. " I'm kind of surprised that these neighborhoods don't want cameras TO be monitored / available to police - they are the center of relative high levels of criminal activity. During these peaceful protests I think something like 30 business were looted or destroyed in the union square a…
Seriously, who say Latinx? We talk now about Withex, Axians or Blacus?
There is an articulable enough reason that requires history to know why people would gravitate to that term, now, and why it is not the end all be all of consensus.
Basically, somewhat unlike White, Asian and Black, there are no specific phenotypes or looks that encompass people from Latin America. And Latin America doesn't encompass all parts all of the other Americas or the Caribbean, to all people depending on who you ask. So since
A) White, Asian and Black people can be from Latin America, plus
B) People can be from other parts of the Americas that are not always considered part of Latin America
C) The United States lacks a shorthand to address that population who lacks an adequate form of representation within the United States
then D) some people that want to signal that willingness to acknowledge these realities as Latinx.
But yes, it can be ignorable as it doesn't reflect the wishes of people with heritage from Central and South America and some parts of the Caribbean, but understand that perspective too is because many people from any distinct country in Latin America don't come from a diverse place to begin with as its mostly just their countrypeople with its own unique phenotypes (or not giving representation or to other people in a caste system), whereas in the US there already is a history of grouping people by race for better or for worse for any reason, and the idea falls apart fastest when it comes to Hispanic or Latin America groupings.
White, Asian and Black terms have the same problems when you dive deep enough into it, but the history of migration to the US by those groups makes it easier to ignore that for those groups. For example, if 25%+ of our Asian population had stopped in Peru for a few hundred years before coming to the US, then yeah we actually might be saying something like Axian by now, and there are many people who do wish for more nuanced representation.