5 ms·

[I'm removing this because I don't think this is a productive discussion, and I shouldn't have commented to begin with]

• speedplane 7y ago
  > the legal definition of racism is a small subset of the colloquial definition and the academic definition There is no legal definition of racism. There are legal definitions of unlawful discrimination > I wouldn't take the jury's decision here as a 'fact' You don't have to agree with the jury, but the very purpose of juries is to decide "facts". If a jury decides that something is true, then legally, it is true, even if you personally disagree. Giving such weighty authority to a collection of people from society is not a bug of the system, it's a feature.
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
• barry-cotter 7y ago
  > I wouldn't take the jury's decision here as a 'fact' about racism. 1) the legal definition of racism is a small subset of the colloquial definition and the academic definition. I would be very surprised if the legal definition of racism in this context is anything but the colloquial one. In English or Commonwealth law that would be the “reasonable man” test. The attempt to elide the difference between the sociological concept of structural racism and a person being racist as a description has not had enough success to be able to pass the reasonable man test.