Systemic Racism does NOT exist.

[Deuce]

I gave the OP a direct example and he never even responded *shrug*

 

[Tiny]

Your lack of knowledge of our history is embarrassing. You should educate yourself to avoid making such ignorant remarks.

You need not talk to me in such a way. It's not about whether I am ignorant. It's that even if I am ignorant, you are not supposed to say it like this to my face. Polite behavior. Are you capable of it?

And so what I am ignorant of your country's history? For one thing, I am not from your country (as you have noticed). And even if I was, I would still not be required to know everything about the US. Do *you* know everything about your country? If not, why do you hold me to such a standard?

 

[Threegoofs]

I gave the OP a direct example and he never even responded *shrug*

Note that the OP is now banned.

But especially note his cheerleaders.

 

[bluesmoke]

How Many Black Players Are in the NBA?​

Scraping NBA.com’s player page on June 15, 2020, there was a total of 497 players that were on an NBA roster at some point in the 2019-20 season. We took that list and analyzed each NBA player’s birthplace, race and nationality. From there, we simply added up the different categories and divided it by 497 and this is what our numbers looked like.

The answer to the number of Black players in the NBA is, including mixed race and biracial players with a Black parent, were 403. Those 403 Black players accounted for 81.1% of all players in the 2019-20 season. The NBA had 89 white players (including players from Europe, etc.) during this season; making up 17.9% of all NBA players.

Percentage of Black Players in NBA

Race	Count	%
Black	403	81.1%
White	89	17.9%

This percentage of Black players has increased by 6.7% since 2015 when the Racial and Gender Report Card was released by The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport.

A wholly insignificant category of employment with next to zero impact on the economic well being of people of color. Those benefiting the most are the white owners.

In sports, it is clear who the best performers are and whom thereby should be best compensated. In the vast majority of employment categories, black employees who perform as well and have the same qualifications as white employees are not advanced as often or paid as much. Those are well established, historical facts that have been often publicized.

What you say is irrelevant and not of any significance.

 

[bluesmoke]

You posted…

"Then white people won't move in..."

Didn't I already answer this question? Please clarify what you are trying to say.

 

[bluesmoke]

Only if those "Disparity of outcomes" can be proven to be due to racism.
The fact that there are "Disparity of outcomes" can have many causes, the majority of which which have nothing to do with racism. Let Occam's Razor be your guide on this.
There are many other factors which might be partially or more completely responsible for the "Disparity of outcomes".
It's going to have to be more than just a statistical correlation.

Then parse away and tell me what is the more likely cause based on what, exactly, more significant evidence. If you can't refute my position, it stands unrefuted.

 

[eohrnberger]

Then parse away and tell me what is the more likely cause based on what, exactly, more significant evidence. If you can't refute my position, it stands unrefuted.

Unreasonable request.
You've identified, via citation, summary statistics which indicate there's a disparity of outcomes. Fine. Fair enough. Worthy of further investigation to determine why those disparity of outcomes exist.

Calling out those summary statistics doesn't prove or disprove the proposed hypothesis that those disparity of outcomes have a racial root cause.

You first made assertion that these disparity of outcomes are caused by 'systemic racism'. Please show your homework that proves your case that they are caused by racism.
This being just as unreasonable request as the one you posed in your post.

 

[bubbabgone]

Consider the parable of the shipwrecked slave vessel. The only survivors were a couple of white slavers and a couple of black slaves stuck on an otherwise unpopulated island. The slavers claimed the island as their own, and forced the slaves to build a Robinson-style treehouse for them, and gather coconuts, etc. The white couple had a child, as did the black couple. Eventually, both couples died.

The white child rejected the racist ways of his parents and saw the black child not as an inferior race, but simply as another human being, just like him. He released the black child from her chains, ending the practice of slavery on the island forever.

Still, the white child owned the entire island, which he had inherited from his slaveholding parents, and the black child owned nothing at all. The white child generously offered to rent the black child some space on his island and to give her some of the food from his coconut tree in exchange for what he considered a fair amount of labour.

As he relaxed on the beach, watching her work for 16 hours straight, he felt a sense of pride at what an equitable society he had created, free from the horrors of racism. Instead of being forced to work for racist slavers, the girl now worked for him voluntarily for a mutually agreed-upon wage.

He isn't a racist. He doesn't see her as inferior because of the color of her skin. In fact, he doesn't even see race at all. Which is one of the reasons that he cannot see the systemic problem that still exists on the island that he owns.

If the girl didn't have an opportunity to run the island then your analogy fails cuz you haven't thought it through.
Unless you weren't analogizing the island to the U.S..
In which case what were you doing?

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

If the girl didn't have an opportunity to run the island then your analogy fails cuz you haven't thought it through.
Unless you weren't analogizing the island to the U.S..
In which case what were you doing?

I was addressing the assertion that the only way for there to be a system that is disadvantages people according to race would be if there were 'white racists living today,' as aociswundumho put it, making it happen. In the parable, the girl is placed at a disadvantage because of historical racism, rather than because of and white racists still living.

The point being that systemic racism is about disadvantages or advantages according to race that are inherent in a system, rather than about any individual racists.

 

[bubbabgone]

I was addressing the assertion that the only way for there to be a system that is disadvantages people according to race would be if there were 'white racists living today,' as aociswundumho put it, making it happen. In the parable, the girl is placed at a disadvantage because of historical racism, rather than because of and white racists still living.

The point being that systemic racism is about disadvantages or advantages according to race that are inherent in a system, rather than about any individual racists.

That's what systemic racism is, all right.
But your analogy in the form of a parable didn't demonstrate anything inherent in the system you analogized to.
So I take it that it wasn't your intention to demonstrate systemic racism with the parable?

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

That's what systemic racism is, all right.
But your analogy in the form of a parable didn't demonstrate anything inherent in the system you analogized to.
So I take it that it wasn't your intention to demonstrate systemic racism with the parable?

You feel that the girl in the parable did not have any disadvantages?

 

[Neomalthusian]

I was addressing the assertion that the only way for there to be a system that is disadvantages people according to race would be if there were 'white racists living today,' as aociswundumho put it, making it happen. In the parable, the girl is placed at a disadvantage because of historical racism, rather than because of and white racists still living.

The point being that systemic racism is about disadvantages or advantages according to race that are inherent in a system, rather than about any individual racists.

I understand your point here and I agree, that is what social justice-oriented people are arguing. And stated as you put it, there's little to debate, right? Because all one need do is look at outcomes according to race and it's quite clear, on average it's disadvantageous to be the minority ( y ) or ( z ) in the society compared to being the majority ( x ).

The problems come about when these ideas are actually discussed and debated in law, government, politics, and academia, and how people who advance these ideas respond when challenged or disputed by skeptics. Very often (in my opinion), disagreement with this lens of social justice and systemic racism (might as well call it critical race theory) is met with some form of ad hominem. If you don't adopt and agree with this lens, you must be trying to protect your unfair privilege, and thus you must be part of the problem. That's a very personal counterattack to having an idea disputed, and it makes the entire point of view appear deeply divisive and not seeking harmony, rather appear to seek to foment unrest and tensions, which is further off-putting to the skeptics, who reject it all even more aggressively.

 

[bubbabgone]

You feel that the girl in the parable did not have any disadvantages?

So an analogy was your intention? And you still think the analogy was an accurate one?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

You need not talk to me in such a way. It's not about whether I am ignorant. It's that even if I am ignorant, you are not supposed to say it like this to my face. Polite behavior. Are you capable of it?

And so what I am ignorant of your country's history? For one thing, I am not from your country (as you have noticed). And even if I was, I would still not be required to know everything about the US. Do *you* know everything about your country? If not, why do you hold me to such a standard?

I will address you in the manner I choose (within forum guidelines), based on the tone and content of your posts.

You’re no unbiased neophyte victim of unfair treatment, Tiny. In fact, much of your posting is partisan and deliberately antagonistic.

Leftists cry about white on black ill treatments not because they care about black people, but because they hate white people and want to see them suffer.

And you have no excuse for posting utterly stupid assertions like this;

Not sure what your point is. Yes they are all descended from slaves, and? They are still fortunate to be living in the States, doesn't matter how it came to be that way.

Of course, you’re not expected to know all about American culture, law, history, etc., but you are expected to take the initiative to educate yourself on a subject before opining from a biased and completely ignorant position, making a complete ass of yourself, as you did when you posted the above assertion.

Hopefully, you’ll find this post informative and will consider the advice offered when posting from now on.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

I understand your point here and I agree, that is what social justice-oriented people are arguing. And stated as you put it, there's little to debate, right? Because all one need do is look at outcomes according to race and it's quite clear, on average it's disadvantageous to be the minority ( y ) or ( z ) in the society compared to being the majority ( x ).

The problems come about when these ideas are actually discussed and debated in law, government, politics, and academia, and how people who advance these ideas respond when challenged or disputed by skeptics. Very often (in my opinion), disagreement with this lens of social justice and systemic racism (might as well call it critical race theory) is met with some form of ad hominem. If you don't adopt and agree with this lens, you must be trying to protect your unfair privilege, and thus you must be part of the problem. That's a very personal counterattack to having an idea disputed, and it makes the entire point of view appear deeply divisive and not seeking harmony, rather appear to seek to foment unrest and tensions, which is further off-putting to the skeptics, who reject it all even more aggressively.

Could you link to a post in this thread where you believe I engaged in such an ad hominem as you describe?

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

So an analogy was your intention? And you still think the analogy was an accurate one?

My intention was to provide an example of a situation in which the consequences of racism might extend beyond the lives of the racists who created it.

Are you contending that it is impossible for the consequences of racism to extend beyond the lives of the racists that created them?

 

[bubbabgone]

My intention was to provide an example of a situation in which the consequences of racism might extend beyond the lives of the racists who created it.

Are you contending that it is impossible for the consequences of racism to extend beyond the lives of the racists that created them?

I'm contending that your parable didn't demonstrate systemic racism in the U.S.
You say it wasn't supposed to so that's fine.
Still, it's curious you said it at all but, whatever.
You have a more appropriate parable?
Better yet, a real life example of a system that's racist?

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

I'm contending that your parable didn't demonstrate systemic racism in the U.S.
You say it wasn't supposed to so that's fine.
Still, it's curious you said it at all but, whatever.
You have a more appropriate parable?
Better yet, a real life example of a system that's racist?

Let me bring you up to speed. This is what aociswundumho said:

If systemic racism is real, then it's because of 'white racists living today' who are part of the system. The only place the racism in the sytem can come from is from 'white racists living today'.

I addressed this faulty reasoning with an example of how systemic disadvantages can persist without coming from 'white racists living today.' Are you taking up the argument that they cannot? Or are we going to agree that systemic disadvantages can persist independent of racist individuals and move on to other points?

 

[Tiny]

I will address you in the manner I choose (within forum guidelines), based on the tone and content of your posts.

And what was my tone like that necessitated your calling my post "embarrassing"? And funny you should mention "content" (of my posts). Are you implying that if you disagree with what I say, that means you get to respond in a very nasty manner?

And yes as a matter of act, you can address me in any manner you choose, and that includes being rude.

By the way, if you want people to engage in a conversation with you, my recommendation is that you act in a reasonably civil manner.

You’re no unbiased neophyte victim of unfair treatment, Tiny.

Not sure what you are trying to say, but, I am not white.

In fact, much of your posting is partisan and deliberately antagonistic.

You mean my posts in this thread, or in general?

Either way, quote me. I want to see whether I am being antagonistic. I admit that I sometimes do that, but most of it is when I respond in kind. As in, I was responding to someone who was being rude to me first. Normally I am very polite.

And so what that my posts are partisan? Does that justify you being rude to me?

And you have no excuse for posting utterly stupid assertions like this;

I don't care whether you think I post "stupid assertions" like that. Even if someone posts something that you think is stupid, it still not grounds for being rude to them. The issue isn't whether my assertions are "stupid" or not. It's even if you genuinely feel that I am being stupid, you should still keep a civil tongue in your head.

Not saying that I am spastic, but when you see a true, literal spastic person in real life, do you laugh at them or call them stupid? I am sure you would not. So why would you do it to me?

And funny you should say, "you have no business ____". Are you saying that you are the arbiter who gets to decide whether other people "have any business" saying certain things?

Of course, you’re not expected to know all about American culture, law, history, etc., but you are expected to take the initiative to educate yourself on a subject before opining from a biased and completely ignorant position, making a complete ass of yourself, as you did when you posted the above assertion.

You could have asked me to clarify my position. Maybe I mis-spoke, or I was replying in haste and made a mistake, there are all kinds of possibilities for why I said the things I said, it's not always because I am "ignorant" or "making a complete ass" of myself. For example, true, it was incorrect to say that all blacks in the States are descended from slaves, and yes I did claim that they are, but this could be an oversight on my part, not something that's due to ignorance of your country's history, law, culture..etc. You could have asked me why I thought that, or pointed out that I was wrong, or a whole host of other responses that did not involve insulting me.

Do you feel that if someone is being supposedly ignorant, that means you get to be as rude as possible to them?

And so what that I was allegedly making a complete ass of myself? Why are you so concerned? Do you care about me deeply or what?

Hopefully, you’ll find this post informative and will consider the advice offered when posting from now on.

No offense but I would never take advice from someone like you. You act like a rabid dog to people you disagree with and you can't handle it when others disagree with you. Do I need to remind you of your defensive behavior in that thread in the gun forum, where Glitch schooled your Bulgarian ass? You literally said, "why are you compelled to publicize your ignorance?" Yeah, you were totally not lashing out like a child. And no, you never say anything antagonistic, either.

 

[aociswundumho]

I addressed this faulty reasoning with an example of how systemic disadvantages can persist without coming from 'white racists living today.' Are you taking up the argument that they cannot? Or are we going to agree that systemic disadvantages can persist independent of racist individuals and move on to other points?

I said systemic racism, not "systemic disadvantages", and I addressed how many other groups overcame similar disadvantages in a previous post.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

I said systemic racism, not "systemic disadvantages", and I addressed how many other groups overcame similar disadvantages in a previous post.

That is what systemic racism is. Systemic disadvantages according to race.

I defined what I meant by systemic racism (and what nearly everyone who uses the term means) at the very beginning of our exchange, so it is a bit late to pretend that you were talking about something completely different:

The fundamental misunderstanding about systemic racism is that it isn't about 'white racists living today.' Systemic racism is about racial advantages and disadvantages inherent in the system.

Racists (of any color) living today engage in what is known as 'Individual Racism,' which manifests on an interpersonal level and depends upon the personal prejudices of an individual. This is much different from systemic racism.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Could you link to a post in this thread where you believe I engaged in such an ad hominem as you describe?

No and I wasn't accusing you in particular of ad hominems. It's a general tendency that is observed and perceived. What tends to happen when this worldview is disputed/argued against/challenged?

My fellow white people: if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem | Katherine Craig

Munroe Bergdorf’s assertion that all white people are racist has upset many, but society is skewed in our favour and it is right to acknowledge that, writes lawyer and social change consultant Katherine Craig

www.theguardian.com

 

[aociswundumho]

That is what systemic racism is. Systemic disadvantages according to race.

No, it isn't.

I defined what I meant by systemic racism (and what nearly everyone who uses the term means) at the very beginning of our exchange, so it is a bit late to pretend that you were talking about something completely different:

The fundamental misunderstanding about systemic racism is that it isn't about 'white racists living today.' Systemic racism is about racial advantages and disadvantages inherent in the system.

Yes, the current system that we are living in:

Institutional racism, also known as systemic racism, is a form of racism that is embedded through laws within society or an organization. It can lead to such issues as discrimination in criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power, and education, among other issues. Institutional racism can have harmful effects on people, especially on students in school where it is prominent.

And once again:

If systemic racism is real, then it's because of 'white racists living today' who are part of the system. The only place the racism in the sytem can come from is from 'white racists living today'.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

No, it isn't.

Yes it is.

 

[aociswundumho]

Yes it is.

I provided evidence that it isn't, and you just keep making the assertion that it is.

I'll let the readers decide for themselves.