In American socio-political discourse today, there are few charges more damaging than, "That's racist!" (or, "You are racist!"). That in itself is not a bad thing--bigots should be pilloried and shunned. The problem is that the very effectiveness of that particular rhetorical weapon is enough to present a temptation to use it even where no plausible case for racism exists.
This sometimes manifests itself in odd ways. Consider, for example, a developmental Microsoft smart phone app designed to help users avoid high crime areas. According to a CBS News report, that is seen by some to be "racist":
An in-development Microsoft smart phone app designed to help drivers and pedestrians avoid unsafe neighborhoods is proving controversial among some minority rights groups that find the software potentially discriminatory.
The as-of-yet unnamed product is being referred to as the “Avoid The Ghetto” app by those who are concerned with where it will guide users.
The story goes on to quote Dallas NAACP President Juanita Wallace as saying she will "be up in arms" over the app if it becomes available--despite not even knowing yet what areas will be labelled "high crime." She continues:
“It’s almost like gerrymandering,” she said. “It’s stereotyping for sure and without a doubt; I can’t emphasize enough, it’s discriminatory.”
According to Device Magazine, one of the objections to this app is that it could be hard on some neighborhoods' economies:
Controversy and questions have begun to swirl around Microsoft’s purpose in offering such a service: Is it racially motivated? How will it affect businesses located in depressed areas? Some have gone so far as to blame Microsoft for damaging the economies of minority neighborhoods.
Do people now carry a moral obligation to subordinate their physical safety to other's financial gain? A self-defense oriented traveler could find such an app invaluable in achieving what should be everyone's goal--avoiding violence.
It should be pointed out that Microsoft has already stated that crime statistics--not ethnic makeup--will determine which areas users will be advised to avoid. If people like Juanita Wallace fear that crime statistics disproportionately implicate neighborhoods of certain ethnic compositions, it would seem that she has on some level noticed the "elephant in the room," even if she is not quite ready to come out and acknowledge it:
And we also can't forget to look at race--not as a cause of violent crime, but as an indicator of populations most directly affected by and responsive to a continuing history of destructive government policies.
One prime example of those "destructive government policies" is, of course, oppressive gun laws. These high crime areas tend also to be inner city areas, where gun laws tend to be the most restrictive--and we know why that is.
That "gun control" laws tend to be concentrated in just the areas where people are most likely to need an effective means of self-defense just adds one more layer of depravity to the mountain of evil that is forcible citizen disarmament.
See also:
Comments