> It’s worth noting that in my experience, the drivers who
most blatantly refused me service have never been white.
[...] 84 percent of New York City cab drivers are
immigrants (the vast majority are “of colour”)
This doesn't come as a surprise to me. Eastern countries in general have stronger group-identities, and as such one group being less tolerant, or ignoring, if not downright hostile of the other group is prevalent.
I think it would be far more productive if people looked at these issues as group-based conflicts (instead or race-based ones). Then you have a wide range of group based identification to be aware of, to the point of successfully mitigating it.
For clarity, here are some groups that we identify with (leading to all sorts of conflicts):
- as ‘employee’/‘employer’, ‘worker’/‘pensioner’, ‘junior/’senior’ and so on.
- as ‘English’, ‘American’, ‘Australian’ and etcetera.
- as ‘white’, ‘black’, ‘brown’ or whatever.
- as a ‘Hindu’, a ‘Muslim’, a ‘Christian’, a ‘Buddhist’ ad infinitum.
- as a ‘Capitalist’, a ‘Communist’, a ‘Monarchist’, a ‘Fascist’ and etcetera.
- as a ‘Democrat’, a ‘Tory’, a ‘Republican’, a ‘Liberal’ and all the rest.
- as ‘son’/‘daughter’, ‘brother’/‘sister’, ‘father’/‘mother’ and the whole raft of relatives.
I only see one "group" on that list that's ever caused one of my friends to be blatantly delayed/denied service in the public square in the way the article describes. No bonus points for guessing which one.
The OP sought to put all those various forms of discrimination on an equal footing for whatever completely bizarre reason (does anyone really believe cabbies are quizzing people on their political affiliation before giving them a ride or serving them a meal?) but the color of one's skin is the only one that commonly causes quick and blatant discrimination in these situations today in the United States.
We've got a legacy of racism here, but also: you might have a whole raft of nasty prejudices but there aren't a lot of ways to discriminate against someone you don't know in a first contact situation. Physical appearance is the big one.
... Somehow I "forgot" that it had to be one that was visually distinguishable I guess?
Oh, wait, now I remember.
Some religions mandate things about clothing which are visually distinguishable. I think that was something that I thought also could have been it.
It's not hard to imagine someone who is not familiar with the practice being unwilling to allow a Sikh to bring their kirpan in the taxi. (Hoping that I'm not misunderstanding something about that)
Now, from the context, I suppose I should have concluded which one they meant.
But people can be discriminated against based on things which are visibly apparent, and are mandated by a religion.
I think that's hypothetically a legitimate point. I have friends who wear a yarmulke and I've never heard of anything happening, but I can see how there might be cities where that sort of thing goes on. Blatant discrimination against Jews happened in the American south in my father's youth, but not so much anymore. ("soft" discrimination is a different matter)
Doubly so for Muslims in these times, or Sikhs, and so on. I'm sure bad things happen.
I've got to tell you, though, withholding service is a pretty extreme thing and it's only been described as a common experience to me by one group of people. (and I should say, I've also witnessed it) It's the same dull, discriminatory bullshit we've been dealing with in America forever and I strongly suspect we aren't going to destroy it by taking a "we must also think of the Tories who are suffering from discrimination!" approach. That's very silly, and what it implies is dishonest.
What the OP sought to put -- via conveying it in written words -- is the notion that it (as in, achieving equity and parity between people) would be far more productive if people looked at these issues as group-based conflicts (instead of race-based ones) ... and the primary reason the OP drew attention to human groups as a whole, instead of the narrower set of groups known as races, is to do with the fact that these conflicts -- be they between a taxi driver and a person of African descent, or between a husband and a wife -- are ultimately sourced in the group-identity of the respected parties.
What the OP never put in words (much less sought to put them) are the various forms of discrimination (be it on equal or unequal footing) as the OP was pointing fingers at the deeper root-cause of group-identity and not the superficial facet of discriminations. It is worth bearing in mind that there is far more to human suffering than simply being discriminated at.
Speaking personally the OP is only concerned with his own group-identifications -- how it negatively affects himself and everybody who comes in contact with him -- and (since very recently) not the members of whatever group he currently identifies with. Put simply, the OP specifically points to paying attention to one's own group-identities and not the "Tories."
- Potential passengers register with their name and personal credit card.
- Drivers are paired in a way that conceals destination and ensures equal distribution of bad ones.
- Passengers and drivers rate each other and bad ones are removed from the system.
- No tipping (or priced in a way that doesn't depend on it).
This reassures both parties that there are consequences to failing to do your part (criminally or otherwise).
It's just that the same people who were supposed to have solved this problem, also scream bloody murder at the Ubers and Lyfts who implement the above solution.
>Passengers and drivers rate each other and bad ones are removed from the system.
Never used Uber/Lyft, so maybe the answer would be obvious if I had, but...
What stops drivers from giving bad ratings based on race or destination? Likewise, what stops passengers from giving drivers bad ratings based on race or some other prejudice?
Nothing, but giving a bad rating for race would be weird and rare.
Additionally you always see the driver's photo, and optionally see the riders photo before the ride starts, so the deeply racist probably cancel before the ride anyway.
Since it appears that the ATS process is a fairly standard complaint process. Why doesn't somebody make an app for that, get the taxi number and time then allow somebody to enter the rest of the details (or video/photo) and submit.
Feels like worth doing to make the world a better place.
It's going to be interesting to see which parts of these various cities suddenly have taxi coverage, when self-driving cars eat these taxi drivers' jobs.
This sort of discrimination is not limited to Taxi Drivers,
Speaking from experience, Uber drivers can and will reject a customer if they don't like the neighborhood you're traveling to.
How does an Uber driver reject a fare they've already accepted? Since they don't know the destination until they pick you up, are they kicking you out of the car after they pick you up? I've heard that Uber tracks the number of "driver canceled after accepting a fare" incidents and warns drivers if they do it too frequently.
Users can enter the destination before being picked up. I've had drivers cancel before arriving, so I usually wait to enter the destination until my seat belt is buckled.
It lets you get a fare estimate and it lets you avoid having to spell out the destination address to the driver, so it's easier on both of you.
This is especially true when the address contains difficult or uncommon words like Sycamore or Cheswycke, which I'm pretty sure I'd screw up writing, and I'd guess that others would as well.
While this is true, it's pretty easy to infer from gps. If there's a 10 minute ETA and you just went over the proverbial train tracks into the bad side of town, or you're familiar with the surrounding towns, it's not difficult.
29 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 72.2 ms ] threadThis doesn't come as a surprise to me. Eastern countries in general have stronger group-identities, and as such one group being less tolerant, or ignoring, if not downright hostile of the other group is prevalent.
I think it would be far more productive if people looked at these issues as group-based conflicts (instead or race-based ones). Then you have a wide range of group based identification to be aware of, to the point of successfully mitigating it.
For clarity, here are some groups that we identify with (leading to all sorts of conflicts):
- as ‘employee’/‘employer’, ‘worker’/‘pensioner’, ‘junior/’senior’ and so on.
- as ‘English’, ‘American’, ‘Australian’ and etcetera.
- as ‘white’, ‘black’, ‘brown’ or whatever.
- as a ‘Hindu’, a ‘Muslim’, a ‘Christian’, a ‘Buddhist’ ad infinitum.
- as a ‘Capitalist’, a ‘Communist’, a ‘Monarchist’, a ‘Fascist’ and etcetera.
- as a ‘Democrat’, a ‘Tory’, a ‘Republican’, a ‘Liberal’ and all the rest.
- as ‘son’/‘daughter’, ‘brother’/‘sister’, ‘father’/‘mother’ and the whole raft of relatives.
- as ‘boy’/‘girl’, ‘man’/‘woman’.
The OP sought to put all those various forms of discrimination on an equal footing for whatever completely bizarre reason (does anyone really believe cabbies are quizzing people on their political affiliation before giving them a ride or serving them a meal?) but the color of one's skin is the only one that commonly causes quick and blatant discrimination in these situations today in the United States.
We've got a legacy of racism here, but also: you might have a whole raft of nasty prejudices but there aren't a lot of ways to discriminate against someone you don't know in a first contact situation. Physical appearance is the big one.
Oh, wait, now I remember.
Some religions mandate things about clothing which are visually distinguishable. I think that was something that I thought also could have been it.
It's not hard to imagine someone who is not familiar with the practice being unwilling to allow a Sikh to bring their kirpan in the taxi. (Hoping that I'm not misunderstanding something about that)
Now, from the context, I suppose I should have concluded which one they meant.
But people can be discriminated against based on things which are visibly apparent, and are mandated by a religion.
Doubly so for Muslims in these times, or Sikhs, and so on. I'm sure bad things happen.
I've got to tell you, though, withholding service is a pretty extreme thing and it's only been described as a common experience to me by one group of people. (and I should say, I've also witnessed it) It's the same dull, discriminatory bullshit we've been dealing with in America forever and I strongly suspect we aren't going to destroy it by taking a "we must also think of the Tories who are suffering from discrimination!" approach. That's very silly, and what it implies is dishonest.
What the OP sought to put -- via conveying it in written words -- is the notion that it (as in, achieving equity and parity between people) would be far more productive if people looked at these issues as group-based conflicts (instead of race-based ones) ... and the primary reason the OP drew attention to human groups as a whole, instead of the narrower set of groups known as races, is to do with the fact that these conflicts -- be they between a taxi driver and a person of African descent, or between a husband and a wife -- are ultimately sourced in the group-identity of the respected parties.
What the OP never put in words (much less sought to put them) are the various forms of discrimination (be it on equal or unequal footing) as the OP was pointing fingers at the deeper root-cause of group-identity and not the superficial facet of discriminations. It is worth bearing in mind that there is far more to human suffering than simply being discriminated at.
Speaking personally the OP is only concerned with his own group-identifications -- how it negatively affects himself and everybody who comes in contact with him -- and (since very recently) not the members of whatever group he currently identifies with. Put simply, the OP specifically points to paying attention to one's own group-identities and not the "Tories."
- Potential passengers register with their name and personal credit card.
- Drivers are paired in a way that conceals destination and ensures equal distribution of bad ones.
- Passengers and drivers rate each other and bad ones are removed from the system.
- No tipping (or priced in a way that doesn't depend on it).
This reassures both parties that there are consequences to failing to do your part (criminally or otherwise).
It's just that the same people who were supposed to have solved this problem, also scream bloody murder at the Ubers and Lyfts who implement the above solution.
Never used Uber/Lyft, so maybe the answer would be obvious if I had, but...
What stops drivers from giving bad ratings based on race or destination? Likewise, what stops passengers from giving drivers bad ratings based on race or some other prejudice?
Additionally you always see the driver's photo, and optionally see the riders photo before the ride starts, so the deeply racist probably cancel before the ride anyway.
At least in 2014, it sounds like Uber has no way to verify racism isn't happening: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/28/are-ubers-...
Feels like worth doing to make the world a better place.
Interesting! Is this just to get a fare estimate? I don't think I ever noticed this feature in the app back when I used it.
This is especially true when the address contains difficult or uncommon words like Sycamore or Cheswycke, which I'm pretty sure I'd screw up writing, and I'd guess that others would as well.