> The OP said nothing like this. You're projecting a bad-faith argument onto their comment. But you know that, and are trying to hone in a single example in order to strawman valid concerns about the technology and its effects.
Yes, I will admit I am projecting, or rather assuming, bad-faith on their part, or at least sneaky rhetorical tactics. I used to assume good faith, but the past 5 years or so have made me realize that very few people operate this way. If I see someone making a point, and an underspecified part of their post or a part where they use vague language may give a certain impression, and it just so happens that that certain impression furthers the point they were trying to make(rather than diminish it, or be orthogonal to the point), then I assume there was intent to do such a thing.
OP said:
> It doesn't work all that well and is selectively deployed in minority areas and is used by police to selectively enforce crimes, sometimes also altering the evidence.
Yes, I suppose it sometimes may be selectively deployed in minority areas in order to oppress them, but without any kind of mention of the rate that that happens, this appears to be OP trying to convince you that it may be worse than it is. If you didn't know anything about cars, and I said that cars are used to intentionally murder people, you would probably have a worse perception of cars than if you had a more thorough understanding of their usage.
Therefore, my point was to show that shot spotter is not just used to oppress minorities, I provided an example of a predominantly black city choosing to use the technology, which almost certainly means there are uses of the tech that aren't about oppressing minorities.
> That was the whole point of your post. You had nothing else substantive to say.
I'm sorry, but I understand my point better than you do. I apologize for not being more explicit earlier. Hope my post helped.