3 ms·

> Please don't flame me. I could just easily flame you and I'm not. Your first claim so blatantly false and wrong that it's pretty appropriate to assume that y

• CryptoPunk 6y ago
  >>Your first claim so blatantly false and wrong that it's pretty appropriate to assume that you're trolling. You do realize that I think exactly the same about you, right? To assume that your perspective is so superior, that it gives you a right to ignore civil protocol, is incredibly arrogant. >>I mean, systemic/institutional racism doesn't exist and/or isn't a problem in the US, what? You're not providing a counter-argument. Your incredulity at my statement of fact doesn't give your absurd allegation of systemic racism any more credibility. >you find affirmative action to be so significant that it however substantiate systemic racism in favour of black Americans? Affirmative action is a form of systemic racism, in that it's racism that institutionized, meaning part of the formal structure of organizations, and accepted by the social contract. >So that systemic/institutional racism does not include implicit bias? The formal structure of institutions, as defined by their formal usually written rules, is the best description of their systemic/institutional properties. Only laws and other formal structures can have a systemic effect, and anything institutional by definition consists solely of them. One can stretch the definition of systemic/institutional a bit to also include the social contract. In neither case can one claim there is anything except systemic/institutional racism in favor of black Americans. Implicit bias is not a systemic property, as it varies between individuals. There is also significant implicit bias in favor of black Americans. This study shows police are 25 times more likely to shoot an unarmed white male than an unarmed black male: https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=267470 https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=2674...
  • jahaja 6y ago
    > You do realize that I think exactly the same about you, right? To assume that your perspective is so superior, that it gives you a right to ignore civil protocol, is incredibly arrogant. > absurd allegation of systemic racism So the contents of this article is blatantly false? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism I'm curious to know about what year you think, approximately, that systemic racism against black Americans ceased? That you find me uncivil doesn't really bother me. > "The formal structure of institutions, as defined by their formal usually written rules, is the best description of their systemic/institutional properties. Only laws and other formal structures can have a systemic effect, and anything institutional by definition consists solely of them. One can stretch the definition of systemic/institutional a bit to also include the social contract. In neither case can one claim there is anything except systemic/institutional racism in favor of black Americans." As I thought. You have just decided to entirely redefine the accepted definition of systemic/institutional racism so suit your argument. "But it doesn't say anything about race in this formal document!". Ignoring anything - apparently no matter how established and prevalent - that goes against your arguments is the fallacy of cherry-picking.
    • CryptoPunk 6y ago
      The definition at the outset of the article is accurate, and consistent with what I said: >>Institutional racism, also known as systemic racism, is a form of racism that is embedded as normal practice within society or an organization. Anything "embedded as normal practice" is either part of the formal rules of the organization, or its informal social contract, just as I described. Much of the rest of the article doesn't describe anything systemic or institutional, or it doesn't describe racism, so yes it's blatantly inaccurate. Wikipedia is articles that any one can edit, and when there is such an extreme ideological bias in the Humanities and Social Sciences, there is always the risk that the articles begin to reflect ideological conceptions of these terms, that don't match the words that the terms contain, like "institutional" and "racism". >>I'm curious to know about what year you think, approximately, that systemic racism against black Americans ceased? I think the end of Jim Crow laws was the end of most institutional racism, with some remnants of it existing in the social contract that was quickly dismantled in the 1970s, as society took a severe stance against anti-black discrimination. But now we have institutional sexism and racism in favor of groups that are deemed to be disadvantaged, like women and black Americans. >>You have just decided to entirely redefine the accepted definition of systemic/institutional racism so suit your argument. Accepted by who? I don't accept the socialists' definition of "slavery" or "expropriation of surplus value", to include workers earning a wage, and investors earning a profit, respectively, either.