4 ms·

I am not saying I will take hypothetical action. I will take real action. But I need evidence that systemic racism exists, you need to point to something and sa

I am not saying I will take hypothetical action. I will take real action. But I need evidence that systemic racism exists, you need to point to something and say “that right there is a racist law/policy”. I have thus far seen no such laws or policies. And please, don’t start with a conclusion (there are only X number of PoC CEO’s or something) and then go on a witch hunt to prove your conclusion. That is not how reason and science works. Until evidence is brought forth I cannot accept the systematic racism theory (and that is all it is without evidence). And since I suspect no such evidence actually exists, and since I am not inclined to go in witch hunts, why is the burden of proof on me? No, you show me the proof, I have enough things to worry about. Not to mention, laws and policies are public information, if there were racist ones it shouldn’t be hard to find and would have likely already come to light, yet no one can point me to one. This is no different than when someone claims God is real, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the person denying the existence of God. What you’re doing is essentially demanding I prove God doesn’t exist.

virgildotcodes 4y ago
So you went from saying that those who have experienced adversity can naturally empathize with the adversity others have faced, to now saying you do not accept that systemic racism exists? Do you see how those two statements strongly contradict one another? Anyway, if your position is genuinely that systemic racism doesn't exist, given all the information you have access to in this day, then I don't think there's any evidence I could show you that would ever sway you. That said, it's worth a shot, here's a tiny grain of sand on the nearly infinite beach of facts supporting the continued existence of racism - people with white sounding names are 50% more likely to receive a callback for a job interview.[1] [1]https://archive.is/fdUuy https://archive.is/fdUuy
- hitpointdrew 4y ago
  > Do you see how those two statements strongly contradict one another? Nope, no contradiction at all. You can have adversity and not have systemic racism. I don’t have the foggiest clue how you can think that is a contradiction. > people with white sounding names are 50% more likely to receive a callback for a job interview.[1] Fair enough, but how is this remotely “systemic”? Do you really think there are company policies that promote this? Or is this individual (I.e. not systemic) biases? Unless the company policy is to prefer the resumes with white sounding names then I don’t see how this is systemic.
  - philosopher1234 4y ago
    Your logic is weak and inconsistent. You should reflect on yourself and this problem more.
philosopher1234 4y ago
Have you spent any time researching it at all? Do you have any curiosity about it? You're delusional.

virgildotcodes 4y ago

So you went from saying that those who have experienced adversity can naturally empathize with the adversity others have faced, to now saying you do not accept that systemic racism exists? Do you see how those two statements strongly contradict one another? Anyway, if your position is genuinely that systemic racism doesn't exist, given all the information you have access to in this day, then I don't think there's any evidence I could show you that would ever sway you. That said, it's worth a shot, here's a tiny grain of sand on the nearly infinite beach of facts supporting the continued existence of racism - people with white sounding names are 50% more likely to receive a callback for a job interview.[1] [1]https://archive.is/fdUuy https://archive.is/fdUuy

hitpointdrew 4y ago
> Do you see how those two statements strongly contradict one another? Nope, no contradiction at all. You can have adversity and not have systemic racism. I don’t have the foggiest clue how you can think that is a contradiction. > people with white sounding names are 50% more likely to receive a callback for a job interview.[1] Fair enough, but how is this remotely “systemic”? Do you really think there are company policies that promote this? Or is this individual (I.e. not systemic) biases? Unless the company policy is to prefer the resumes with white sounding names then I don’t see how this is systemic.
- philosopher1234 4y ago
  Your logic is weak and inconsistent. You should reflect on yourself and this problem more.

philosopher1234 4y ago

Have you spent any time researching it at all? Do you have any curiosity about it? You're delusional.