Google Campus Security Singled Out Black, Latinx Employees (bloomberg.com) 336
Google's campus security system subjected Black and Latinx workers to bias and prompted complaints to management, Bloomberg News reported Thursday, citing people familiar with the situation, leading the company to scrap a key part of the approach. From a report: The internet giant encouraged employees to check colleagues' ID badges on campus, and asked security staff to do the same. This went beyond the typical corporate office system where workers swipe badges to enter. The policy was designed to prevent unauthorized visitors and keep Google's open work areas safe. But some staffers told management that Black and Latinx workers had their badges checked more often than other employees, according to the people, who experienced this themselves or saw friends and colleagues go through it. As a result, these employees felt policed on campus in a similar way that they are under suspicion elsewhere in life, said the people, who weren't authorized to speak publicly about the issue. It's an example of the unconscious, or overlooked, biases that make working in Silicon Valley harder for minorities, the people added.
Slashdot is getting woke (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And what the fuck is "Latinx"? That isn't a real word.
Also, it's obnoxious how Americans constantly misuse the words Latin and Hispanic. Latin describes a person or thing from Italy and Hispanic describes a person or thing from Spain. Neither have anything to do with Central or South America.
Re:Slashdot is getting woke (Score:5, Informative)
>Neither have anything to do with Central or South America.
"The term was used also by Napoleon III's French government in the 1860s as Amérique latine to consider French-speaking territories in the Americas, along with the larger group of countries where Spanish and Portuguese languages prevailed, including the Spanish-speaking portions of the United States (Southwestern United States and Florida)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
more importantly, how the fuck do you pronounce it?
latin-x?
la-tinx?
(actually being serious for a change, with zero snark.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Latinx sounds like a Latex plugin.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
So language does matter... Or does it only matter when you don't like a word, not the people who it actually refers to?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Biology is not binary. There are probably almost no pure males anywhere on earth. The problem is that gene expression can be regulated and silenced. Which means you can be XY and female if the Y chromosome is silenced. More commonly you would get incomplete expression. This expression is not even constant over your entire body. You could be 99.9% Y expression in most of your body but it might be silenced in some areas.
You can be pure female with XX since even incomplete expression on one chromosome would no
Re: (Score:3)
In the end we have male and female as social constructs
I'm pretty sure that "being able to give birth when healthy" is *not* a social construct, that I *don't* have it, and that no amount of social constructs will enable me to do that. Feel free to give birth if you feel like it, though.
Re:Slashdot is getting woke (Score:4, Informative)
You can be XY with Y mostly silenced and still be fertile and give birth. You can even by XY and have incomplete expression and develop most of your body as male but have working female sexual organs and still be fertile.
Male and Female are social constructs. Biology is far too complex to just fit into those two simple bins. If you see someone that looks like a guy and acts like a guy that does not mean they have male reproductive organs. You are treating someone as Male or Female because of the way they look and the way they behave. That sure sounds like a social construct to me.
In general, I try to treat people respectfully and the way they express (within limits of course). If you want to delve into actual matters of sex you should be a doctor, biologist, etc. and learn a lot more about the subject before getting involved. In the end what someone's sex is does not concern you and it is none of your business.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the language changes constantly in order to be sure everyone keeps up on their fashion, and anyone using the older terms is clearly an older fart who should be ignored.
Anyway, I think latinx is short for latino/latina, because a few people don't like the fact that in Spanish that latino gets used as the plural term. It might work in writing but it's utterly unpronounceable.
Re: (Score:3)
And what the fuck is "Latinx"? That isn't a real word.
It is a word, it's just not a Spanish word. It's a word that some people invented because they don't like the concept of a gendered language.
Re: (Score:2)
Hope it's not a case of woke and broke.
I do. "Wokeness" should be punished with financial pain.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it? I sure hope not. I just came back here from a 6 year hiatus to see how the place has weathered the oncoming woke storm after getting fed up with the awokening of some of the other forums out there. It would be sad to see the place go op in flames of rage.
Re: (Score:3)
They aren't even true Randians. They believe that you can "get tough on crime" just by creating more laws, without acknowleding that laws can be just or unjust. More laws and more enforcement specifically targeted at minorities (because melanin == crime in their book) is their priority.
There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
Re: Slashdot is getting woke (Score:5, Funny)
Hate to break it to you, but unless you're from the deep South, it doesn't make you sound sassy, whimsical, adorable or smart and instead just singles you out as an unimaginative bandwagon-jumping sheep.
(It's also probably cultural appropriation, so check your privilege pls)
Would have such fun as Google employee (Score:2, Troll)
Think of how much mischief you could work within Google, simply by following the rules...
Were I a Google worker, and an edict was handed down to check badges of follow employees, my new 20% project would be to hang around outside the entrance of the executive suite making sure EVERY badge was in perfect order, including scanning them myself...
There is no greater tool to removing silly mandates, than to make sure they apply fully to those mandating them.
How many more internal rules like this Google must have
Re: (Score:3)
If you actually did that, the perception of the executive suite workers would be that you yourself are the problem that must be removed.
Re: (Score:2)
It will take aobut 40 years for that legal case to come to a final conclusion though, but if you've got an Airstream parked in the Mojave then you can make do in the meantime.
and then get git with an lawsuit over profiling by (Score:2)
and then get git with an lawsuit over profiling by race
Re: (Score:2)
I work at a place that has a similar policy. The key is to cultivate a culture of reasonable people. You can challenge people in the hallways, but you should only do that if you know they're not a regular in that area, if you saw them tailgate through a door (a separate policy says not to tailgate, and not to let people tailgate behind you), or think they aren't supposed to be there.
It's a reasonable security policy, but it can be applied unevenly and unfairly. I'm not sure why Google seems so full of ra
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Any time you say, "X% melanin individuals are responsible for disproportional amounts of crime", you are fallaciously claiming a spurious correlation between melanin levels as cause and crime as the effect.
And you'll properly be modded troll for your racist shit.
Learn to treat people as people, and judge them individually, instead of as a group, as you'll stop getting modded as a racist troll.
Re:Would have such fun as Google employee (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
What the f*ck... (Score:5, Insightful)
... is Latinx?
Re:What the f*ck... (Score:5, Informative)
Latin languages in general are gendered, like latino is a male latino person while latina is a female latino person.
And while the actual people that use spanish/portuguese etc just use the male variant as a default/gender free definition, well, the american left HATES anything gender, so they invented this awful shit they try to force latin people to use.
Re: (Score:2)
the male variant as a default/gender free definition
It's just unmarked [wikipedia.org], that's all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What the f*ck... (Score:5, Informative)
To clarify a common misconception, "Latino" is technically the non-gender-specific term (at least in Spanish). When we say, "Latinas", we state that all people in that group are women. When we say "Latinos", we state that the group could either be a mix of men and women or just all men.
When you learn that through the lens of "seeking offense", you could derive that a women are having their gender removed by the being called "Latino" in a group. However, when there's a group of "Latinos", we assume 99% of them may be women.
The Spanish language is highly gendered and most Spanish speakers have no clue that English-speakers are modifying the Spanish language to ignorantly de-gender the language to save us from ourselves. "Latinx" isn't even how Latinos would elect to de-gender because it's not really pronounceable. Neither as "lah-teenks" or "la-tin-ex" would be created by Spanish-speakers. Consider de-gendering "los ninos" to "lxs ninxs". Try pronouncing that.
Instead, there's been a (very small) effort to use "Latine" (la-teen-eh) because "e" is used often for explicitly non-gendered nouns.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, Latino is the inclusive, Latina the exclusive term?
Re:What the f*ck... (Score:4, Funny)
What a tolerant, respectful person. Everyone should emulate this generous, understanding Liberal who treats everyone with grace and kindness.
Re: (Score:3)
"Your language is sexist and you and all the millions of people that use it should just follow what i demand and change it"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
oh ffs. anything can be sexist or racist if your sensitive enough.
Re:What the f*ck... (Score:5, Funny)
You left out the important part of it, fucko.
That's fuckx now, please.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What the f*ck... (Score:4, Insightful)
But that's so utterly common in these PC debates, it's usually white liberals dictating what the totality of an ethnic group "wants".
We're enjoying this circus now in Minneapolis as legions of white liberals in safe neighborhoods are having a hard time silencing the numerous black community groups who say they do not want the police disbanded and not present in their neighborhoods.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This can easily be turned back on you. "x" is the standard code for pornography, so using the term "latinx" means you think individuals of "latin" heritage are involved with pornography.
Like almost everything from the left, the term is stupid, vicious, or both.
Re: (Score:2)
""x" is the standard code for pornography"
So I guess that makes "latinx" the graffiti you find on the ancient walls in Pompeii.
Standard code for pornography? (Score:3)
What is this the 1920s?
Re:What the f*ck... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
This is my first time seeing that term. I suspect it is meant to be like latino or latina, but gender neutral.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What the f*ck... (Score:5, Funny)
It's an attack on the Spanish language by SJW gringos.
-jcr
gringxs please.
Re: (Score:3)
We gringxs prefer to be called grunx. This is because whenever we try to say gringxs our dentures fall out.
Asterix, Obelix, etc (Score:2)
And now Latinx.
I didn't expect it would come to that, but here we are.
Google was taken over by the Romans !
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you mean the Gauls? Asterix and Obelix were generally the ones giving the Romans all kinds of shit...
Re: (Score:2)
Ils sont fous, ces Romains.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What the f*ck... (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe fix the Stereo Type (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Maybe fix the Stereo Type (Score:5, Funny)
First, im cuban american and i dont know WTF Latinx is and it sounds ridiculous..
LatinX was an upgrade from Latin9.
Re: (Score:3)
Though I quite agree with you, I find it depressing, that you had to preface your — perfectly valid — argument with the announcement of your own origins.
Your words should stand on their own, but, instead, who says them is taken into account...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is that it's mostly the SJWs at this point who're whitesplaining. And if one of the people who are actually affected, i.e. a black person or a hispanic person, stands up and tells them to fuck off, he gets told that he doesn't understand.
Care to explain to me how this is in any way appropriate?
Re:Maybe fix the Stereo Type (Score:4, Informative)
Hold up, you think black people made Snoop Dogg popular? And black people gave him a game show? All those black studio execs got together and decided to make Snoop Dogg popular?
This big rapper are big because they are popular with white people. You think anyone becomes as big as Snoop Dogg because 13% of the population made him that way? His pot smoking ways are popular with white kids which is what made him as big as he is.
As for making changes so "common white folk wont see them in that light", why is it that only applies to them and only white people? How many popular shows are about terrible white people? Does the Sopranos not glorify white criminals? Breaking Bad? So why is it that white people aren't thought of as criminal? Oh that's right, we are talking about how other white people see them, of course they aren't going to see white people as bad. How about instead, white people stop being racist and assuming an entire race is something based on what they sometimes see in popular culture?
Re: Maybe fix the Stereo Type (Score:2)
You saw the two,lead drug dealers on breaking bad as being glorified?
Their lives SUCKED! And the younger one even says at one point in S2 he has figured out who he is, "I'm the bad guy!"
If that's glorification I can't imagine what you think a negative depiction looks like.
I didn't watch Supranos so no comment there.
Re: (Score:2)
Was their life perfect? Of course not because that would have been a boring show. But they were the main characters. Heisenberg was cool. They made huge amounts of money. They had power and respect. Think about much everyone loved the "I'm the ones who knocks" speech. Think about how everyone thought Skyler was terrible for not just embracing what he was doing. People were rooting for them not against them.
Now compare this to rap songs. Sure, they talk about all the money they are making and and sex they ar
Re:Maybe fix the Stereo Type (Score:4, Insightful)
How about instead, white people stop being racist and assuming an entire race is something based on what they sometimes see in popular culture?
I'm a Gen Xer whose mom is from the midwest. She's mildly racist (I don't want to make it sound worse than it is; she was born in the 30's and still has some attitudes that are oh-well-I-never these days) but I went to public schools and watched the usual shows (Sesame Street, etc.) and I grew up on the idea that you shouldn't judge people by their skin color but by the content of their character. And the idea that if people need help, the help should be colorblind... you don't ignore the poor black kid because he's black, but you don't ignore the poor white kid because he's white either.
These days it's race, race, race and I'm fucking sick of it. We have the Gen Z kids explicitly saying they want segregation based on skin color, for the good of the poor fragile blacks who need so much protection. Excuse me, the poor fragile BIPOC (that's Black Indiginous People of Color, an inclusive term that means black, Native American, and any other minority, except Asians because they do too well in school, and anyone from Israel because Israel is just so oh-well-I-never).
I say that Will Smith's kids are better off than the kids of dirt-poor white people, and it would be unethical to give them aid just because they're black even though their father is a multi millionaire.
What's that? You say black people are disproportionately poor compared to whites? Well that's lucky then, because color-blind assistance would then go disproportionately to black people. We don't need "reverse discrimination" it's enough to have NO discrimination.
I don't want special treatment for whites, or special treatments for blacks. I certainly don't want special treatment for me.
And I'm posting this anonymously because this is 2020 and I would be canceled for such horrible attitudes. (Seriously, Dr. Martin Luther King, one of my heroes in childhood, is considered "problematic" now because he thought segregation is a bad idea and didn't espouse black-first ideas.)
I'm also posting anonymously because I don't want to throw my mom under the bus. My point was supposed to be that she managed to raise me less racist than she is. I'm certain she's less racist than the generation that raised her.
There's a few people who make everyone look bad. What really bothers me is all the actually nice people who enable it. Like all the Black Lives Matter demonstrators who just want to make the world a better place, but just happen to provide cover for people who want to smash and destroy and steal.
BLM fans: people attached to your movement have been shooting people. Like that 8 year old child... who was black incidentally. Sort your shit out. You need to start handing over the bad crazy people to the cops.
Oh, what's that, you say all cops are bastards and there aren't any good ones? Then I guess all BLM protesters are rioters who shoot 8-year-olds. If you are going to jettison all nuance, the normal people who don't want to watch the world in flames get to jettison all nuance too.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, get some nice Bang & Olufsen speakers, that sort of thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
As a fucking complete moron, you failed to notice that literally everything everywhere in the history of commerce costs the same amount for everybody. It's total chaos otherwise. The equal part is that you always have the OPPORTUNITY to make more money, no matter what shitty Liberal education you've been handed.
Re: (Score:2)
I work hard and save money so I can give my kids a leg up in life . If every kid gets the same opportunities what is my motivation to work hard and save?
Racial discrimination is wrong but richer kids getting more opportunities is the basis of the family structure.
Once you start attacking that concept, the family structure breaks down.
Re: (Score:3)
Wow. No, the existence of tribes and other essentially flat family structures are a simple disproof of your statement.
Wealth gaps are not the foundation of "family structure". I'm sure that pushing that concept is good for your corporate masters, along with, "trickle down", and "pass on the savings", which have also been proven to be full of shit.
You're a plain liar.
Re:Maybe fix the Stereo Type (Score:4, Interesting)
The inequality is not due to race, it's due to wealth and background.
That black kid born in a downtown Detroit ghetto has the same opportunities in life as a white kid born in a trailer park.
In other words not many. While technically they *could* work hard to get out of the life they were born into that's going to be extremely difficult and they will be surrounded by people in the same situation - many of whom won't make any effort to elevate themselves and will try to drag down anyone who does.
There are plenty of black kids with the same or even better opportunities than you, due to their parents wealth and status. Barack Obama has daughters, do you think they are worse off than you? How about the kids of Will Smith? They probably have far more opportunities than you ever had too.
Re: (Score:3)
No, what he is saying is that the role models of the black and hispanic people should not glorify a lifestyle that is detrimental to upwards mobility. It's like glorifying white trailer trash and pretending that these people are somehow something to aspire to.
And yes, that's basically what we're doing in afternoon TV, and it starts to have an effect on our youth who think that it's cool to be a loser.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, your argument is that if we price things proportional to income, the results are disproportional to income?
That's not how math works.
Re: Maybe fix the Stereo Type (Score:2)
Shouldn't that be gringx?
Re: (Score:2)
That gramatical nonsense.
unconscious? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am not, from https://www.bbc.com/news/magaz... [bbc.com] it shows implicit bias
Over the past few decades, measures of explicit bias have been falling rapidly. For example, in Britain in the 1980s about 50% of the population stated that they opposed interracial marriages. That figure had fallen to 15% by 2011. The US has experienced a similarly dramatic shift. Going back to 1958, 94% of Americans said they disapproved of black-white marriage. That had fallen to just 11% by 2013.
And it makes sense you can think and not be racist explicitly, but changing your gut instinct is much much harder, you simply can't do it, you need a life time of experiences to change that. The article states even black people show implicit bias too.
On the race test, most people show some kind of pro-white, anti-black bias. They are speedier connecting black faces to bad concepts than white faces. (Black people are not immune to this phenomenon themselves.)
Are you suggesting black people are racist against black people? On a conscious level hard to believe, but unconsciously based on the environment where they are in not so much. The only way
"More likely" (Score:2)
Re: "More likely" (Score:2)
Yeah you're right, we need to take a really serious look at fixing all the white on white murders in Chicago, LA, NY, Minneapolis, and Seattle. It's gotten totally out of control.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: "More likely" (Score:2)
Jobs... so you mean how businesses close and stay closed when rioters loot and burn their stores they take local jobs with them? Fascinating.
Re: "More likely" (Score:2)
Perhaps you'd like to explain how pre-welfare state black families were doing better than today despite the levels of real visible racism (as opposed to Karen in a park with a cell phone) being WAY higher then? The KKK and lynchings were an actual real thing then. Now they have to create their own hoax racist letters and nooses a la Jussie and NASCAR clown. If there isn't enough real racism to meet the demand we'll have to create some!
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
What they purged was just his clone. He has a secret lair on campus where he recruits thousands of security guards and grows Snoke clones in tanks.
Don't be hoodwinked! Google can't be racist... (Score:2)
..It's an example of the unconscious, or overlooked, biases that make working in Silicon Valley harder for minorities...
You see, its boss, making over US$100m per year is a minority and a fairly recent immigrant. He wouldn't have succeeded is Google were laden with all the ills against minorities we're hearing.
There is no "Latinx". The correct word is Latino (Score:4, Informative)
There is no "Latinx". The correct word is Latino. Even my browser spell checker knows it.
Latinx is some bullshit word invented by dumb white SJW's. Don't buy into bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
As you get older, the common tongue inevitably changes so that it grates in your ear, as it has done to every generation going back to Chaucer and will for every generations that succeeds us.
People who coin words like "LatinX" may not know what the term "Sapir-Whorf hypothesis" means, but they believe it to some degree, that words limit and shape our thoughts. The reality is more the other way around, that thought shapes words, so that over time a word's meaning is as firm as jello. If enough people deci
Latinx? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Use LatrinX or LocumX, keeps the crapper clean.
evidence? (Score:4, Insightful)
" But some staffers told management that Black and Latinx workers had their badges checked more often than other employees"
but are they really checking Blacks and Latinirexxes (plural of Latinx, right?) more often, or is it another one of those subjective biases from the reporters who see 1 black guy getting checked and immediately squeal "systemtic racism"?
So where is the statistical evidence for this? Not in the article, that's for sure.
(and even then, Google has increased security after 3 of its employees were shot, and we know blacks make up more of the violent criminal, so checking blacks more often, even if it is true, could potentially be justified)
Re: (Score:3)
My hot take on this is that the media is a race-baiting bunch of cunts offering this article saying "Google is racist" without a shred of evidence.
I, for example, might say h33t l4x0r is a child molestor with as much evidence as the article provided, and all it takes is a couple to listen and say "is he", and soon a mob will be screaming "kill the paedo".
So, if you have some evidence for the assertions given in the article, provide them.
Kinda makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Then the composition of people at Google is:
And thus
So if the goal is to maximize the number of intruders caught per hundred ID checks, security is better off checking the IDs of minorities more frequently.* The difference is even greater if the minority races have a higher criminal percentage among the general population. It's got nothing to do with race, everything to do with the disparity between your employee composition and the composition of the general population. As an example of an extreme case, if all your employees are Asian, and you see a white person wandering around inside, you automatically know they're not an employee.
* (A complication arises from people being checked multiple times. Each security guard does not have a running list of who has already had their ID checked, so there's a chance they could re-check the ID of someone that another security guard has already checked. I don't know how many ID checks per day security performs relative to number of Google employees. Or for that matter what percentage of people wandering Google are actually intruders. So it's impossible for me to quantify when this happens. All I can say is that as the frequency of re-checks increases, the efficacy of checking predominantly these two minority races decreases. In the above hypothetical example, eventually you catch and eject enough minority intruders that their percentage drops below the 0.89% of intruders of other races. And you'd actually be better off checking more IDs from other races. Of course the simplest way to avoid this complication is to just check IDs purely randomly, completely ignoring race. It decreases your success rate when the ratio of ID checks to number of employees is low, but avoids decreasing it further when the ratio gets higher.)
Cancel Google (Score:3, Funny)
They oppress wymyn and PoC. We need to peacefully protest at their HQ with fire, guns, blinding lasers, and good old fashioned clubs until they meet our demands to disband and give us all their money because justice or anti-racism or something....
Hey hey ho ho google fascists have got to go!
Stop the insanity (Score:3)
Stop redefining words to placate SJW's. There is no such thing as Latinx - it's a fabricated term. The term certainly isn't used by the Latino community. If your foolish enough to use that term with actual Latinos in the real world outside academia or some corporate campuses you'll look like a clueless idiot at best and that's if you don't outright insult them on the spot.
By the way, similar advice for using African American. You probably don't want to use that term in places like Central or South America or Europe. You might discover it's a good way to get in an on the spot fight.
Regardless, outside of ivory towers, most people don't much appreciate having their identity redefined by self righteous twats. Be respectful and you'll likely get along with anyone who isn't a SJW.
Latinx? (Score:2)
Checked more often? (Score:2)
But some staffers told management that Black and Latinx workers had their badges checked more often than other employees
How would you know this? Was there any type of study or survey done asking everybody how often their badges were checked? I didn't see any indication of this in the article.
Black and Latinx employees were stopped and told “Let me see your badge,” even after they proved they had the right to enter the office by swiping in, one of the people said.
Uh, isn't that what the policy is? To check badges of each other? Aren't they checking that the face/name on the badge matches the person that swiped in?
tough crowd ! (Score:2)
I'm reading at level 3 and can't find a single sympathetic comment for those minorities at Google.
I think you all owe them an apology. Both of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can make any group appear to commit more crime by creating targeted laws and applying selective enforcement.
Re: (Score:3)
Only to a point.
In London, I have some stats that say whilst black folk make up 12% of the population, they are responsible for 61% of the violent crime.
and that is a result of selective enforcement, because the stop-and-search systems were themselves stopped as blacks were being stopped anbd searched, rightly. Perhaps if the police were allowed to do their jobs by the folk who cry racism all the time, they'd take a few more of these violent criminals off the streets and make everyone safer.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Had the obvious disparity we're facing been achieved this way, the "racist" Whites would've criminalized Asians just as well.
Yet, their numbers are even lower than those of the Whites — and they are shot by police far less often too [pnas.org].
I don't know, why that is, but I suspect, growing up with both parents present has something to do with it. 73% of Blacks [actrochester.org] are, literally bastards [princeton.edu], while only 23% o
Re: (Score:2)
Laughing out loud :) [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, that "bias" is just a normal human reaction to a reality that some are uncomfortable talking about. People are biased because there is a bias in statistics in crime. So it is a natural human instinct, which is there for a good reason. Statistically, it makes sense.
Now, the problem is that it hurts a lot those who resemble those stereotypes. And long term, stereotypes tends to reinforce themselves, given they cause discrimination.
So there are two solutions to that.
1. Force ourselves to not judge p