The phrase implies that powerful companies know that historically black neighborhoods don’t have the resources to mount a legal defense against abnormal pollution from data center generators, so the smart choice is to put all the pollution near historically black neighborhoods.

The agenda, as it is every day, is how to externalize costs so that megacompanies don’t have to spend more money to keep our environment clean.

▲

mucle6 9 hours ago | parent [-]

You’re conflating race with poverty.

It feels racist to expect people to assume a neighborhood is 'resource poor' just because it is 'historically black'.

Also, the OP explicitly states that lawsuits are pending. Clearly, the community was able to mount a legal defense

▲

Arn_Thor 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> It feels racist to expect people to assume a neighborhood is 'resource poor' just because it is 'historically black'.

Statistically poverty is correlated with race. For reasons to do with (quite recent) history.

▲

mucle6 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Statistics are not a license to assume.

Crime rates also statistically correlate with demographics, but if I assume a specific person is a criminal based on that stat, I would (rightly) be called racist.

Expecting people to assume 'historically black' == 'poor' similarly feels racist.

▲

dsr_ 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"Historically black" is a euphemism -- that's a term that makes people feel better about something awful -- which refers to the fact that for the majority of the last three hundred years people have been systematically, governmentally, socially and personally discriminated against because of the color of their skin, and that racism led to massive inequity reflected in wealth, income, education and standards of living.

The facts of history show this. It is not a subtle statistical effect.

People who argue the way that you have been are either woefully ignorant of this matter or are playing games trying to justify the status quo, or are just racist trolls. This isn't a FAQ on HN because it's a FAQ in real life.

	▲	mucle6 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[flagged]

▲

danans 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Crime rates also statistically correlate with demographics, but if I assume a specific person is a criminal based on that stat, I would (rightly) be called racist.

Who said anything about a specific person? They are talking about a neighborhood, in a urban area in a region known for the endemic poverty in black-majority areas due to the long shadow of slavery and Jim Crow.

As a wise character once said, "poverty is a condition, not a crime".

> > Expecting people to assume 'historically black' == 'poor' similarly feels racist.

There are a few historically black communities in the US that are middle-class and prosperous, and Black Americans have made huge advances, but to this day, concentrations of Black American community prosperity tend to be the exception rather than the rule.

▲

renewiltord 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Statistically crime is also related with race. Are we ready to make similar assumptions then?

▲

sidereal1 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Crime is related with poverty which is related with race.

	▲	ares623 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No, not like that. /s

▲

hirsin 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You've got an extra actor in the mix that makes for a different argument and actually supports the idea that it's racist, I think.

Namely - I think most agree that it's racist to mindlessly assume race and poverty are correlated. The argument here is that the AI companies made that assumption - in other words, they're being called racists.

I don't think it's racist to speculate that a corporation, that made choices that specifically impact black neighborhoods, is racist.