3 ms·

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

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.