4 ms·

> 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 proto

by 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.
- jahaja 6y ago
  Alright, so you've redefined the entire concept into something else and then went about dismissing the established concept entirely. Because that is, unlike your objective science, based on "extremely ideologically biased humanities and social sciences". Good for you. > 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. This is just staring oneself blind on the letter of law, ignoring everything else. That's not how societies work. It's pointless to discuss subjects with someone who will just redefine them entirely and then refuse to even recognize anything else - everything else is now false, no matter how established. If this is not trolling it's at least dragging the level of discussion into never ending discussion of definitions and revisionism.
  - CryptoPunk 6y ago
    I'm referring to the terms "institutional" and "racism", when put together. If an ideological camp wants to put the terms together, and refer to a class of properties that are not both institutional and racism, I have no obligation to accept their arbitrary redefinition of the terms, and I can point out that the term is extremely misleading, like the "wage slavery" used by Marxists. >>This is just staring oneself blind on the letter of law, ignoring everything else. That's not how societies work. This is just ignoring what the terms "institutional" and "racism" mean, to push a grievance ideology narrative that castigates society. I'm commenting on "institutional racism", not racism in general. Institutional racism is "racism that is embedded as normal practice within society", which only occurs through the mechanism of systemic properties like its laws or rules, or its social contract, just as I explained. >>It's pointless to discuss subjects with someone who will just redefine them entirely and then refuse to even recognize anything else You're the one redefining "institutional" and "racism", and resorting to ad hominem when any one points out the pure absurdity of your narrative.
    - jahaja 6y ago
      > Institutional racism is "racism that is embedded as normal practice within society", which only occurs through the mechanism of systemic properties like its laws or rules, or its social contract, just as I explained. Come on. You've cherry-picked a single vague line from the preamble of that article because it's so general that it also fits your narrow definition. The rest of the article goes on about the established definition. You're redefining an entire concept coined to mean what we are talking about. Instead your clutching at straws adamantly sticking to the textboox definitions of the each word. That's just childish and have to place in any adult conversation. Just in the last week you've redefined the following to fit your unsupported narrative here on HN and called everything else objectively false and refused to even discuss the other definition: * Institutional/System racism, ignoring ~50 years of history (for the term itself, the practice itself is obviously much earlier). * Soclal Democracy, ignoring ~200 years of history * The concept of personal property and it's distinction from private property. Ignoring ~200 years of socialist history. You do realize that you don't have to agree with the concept to at least discuss it? Something like "Yes, if we use established definition, which I disagree with, there's systemic/institutional racism against black people in America". Because what definition do you even think people are using when asking you if it exists? "Do you like the color blue?", "No! there's no blue color". That's just childish and will never generate any constructive discussion at all, and is for all purposes just trolling or at least sabotage - answering a question that contains an established concept/definition with an entirely new one that only you know about.

by jahaja 6y ago

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.

jahaja 6y ago
Alright, so you've redefined the entire concept into something else and then went about dismissing the established concept entirely. Because that is, unlike your objective science, based on "extremely ideologically biased humanities and social sciences". Good for you. > 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. This is just staring oneself blind on the letter of law, ignoring everything else. That's not how societies work. It's pointless to discuss subjects with someone who will just redefine them entirely and then refuse to even recognize anything else - everything else is now false, no matter how established. If this is not trolling it's at least dragging the level of discussion into never ending discussion of definitions and revisionism.
- CryptoPunk 6y ago
  I'm referring to the terms "institutional" and "racism", when put together. If an ideological camp wants to put the terms together, and refer to a class of properties that are not both institutional and racism, I have no obligation to accept their arbitrary redefinition of the terms, and I can point out that the term is extremely misleading, like the "wage slavery" used by Marxists. >>This is just staring oneself blind on the letter of law, ignoring everything else. That's not how societies work. This is just ignoring what the terms "institutional" and "racism" mean, to push a grievance ideology narrative that castigates society. I'm commenting on "institutional racism", not racism in general. Institutional racism is "racism that is embedded as normal practice within society", which only occurs through the mechanism of systemic properties like its laws or rules, or its social contract, just as I explained. >>It's pointless to discuss subjects with someone who will just redefine them entirely and then refuse to even recognize anything else You're the one redefining "institutional" and "racism", and resorting to ad hominem when any one points out the pure absurdity of your narrative.
  - jahaja 6y ago
    > Institutional racism is "racism that is embedded as normal practice within society", which only occurs through the mechanism of systemic properties like its laws or rules, or its social contract, just as I explained. Come on. You've cherry-picked a single vague line from the preamble of that article because it's so general that it also fits your narrow definition. The rest of the article goes on about the established definition. You're redefining an entire concept coined to mean what we are talking about. Instead your clutching at straws adamantly sticking to the textboox definitions of the each word. That's just childish and have to place in any adult conversation. Just in the last week you've redefined the following to fit your unsupported narrative here on HN and called everything else objectively false and refused to even discuss the other definition: * Institutional/System racism, ignoring ~50 years of history (for the term itself, the practice itself is obviously much earlier). * Soclal Democracy, ignoring ~200 years of history * The concept of personal property and it's distinction from private property. Ignoring ~200 years of socialist history. You do realize that you don't have to agree with the concept to at least discuss it? Something like "Yes, if we use established definition, which I disagree with, there's systemic/institutional racism against black people in America". Because what definition do you even think people are using when asking you if it exists? "Do you like the color blue?", "No! there's no blue color". That's just childish and will never generate any constructive discussion at all, and is for all purposes just trolling or at least sabotage - answering a question that contains an established concept/definition with an entirely new one that only you know about.