You didn't have to go and call him a homosexual now. — Outlander

I suppose you're trying to be funny, but if Froot Loop=homosexual where you come from, it's the first I've heard of it.

So even if police brutality statistics can be squarely traced back to the socio-economic circumstances of black people and higher crime rates today then they are there because the system did not and never did anything to make black people equal. That's, in my view, still a form of systemic racism as I consider any social organisation that disregards how we got here as not taking into account history and such things as inheritance inequality. In other words, it's not enough for a system not be racist, you need to be actively anti-racist. This is why I have likened systemic racism as an emergent property before in this and the other thread. — Benkei

OK, but we cannot change what has happened so I guess what we do now still is the most important. Yet this begs the question: just what you mean by being actively anti-racist?

I don't think people who never partook in slavery owe anything to people who were never slaves. Notions that such would be the case have no place in a free society. — Tzeentch

I always find this a rather amusing viewpoint. Nobody partook in a crime either except for the criminal and his victim, yet we go out of our way to pay for police, find the culprit, give recourse for the victim via courts and build prisons. Nobody partook in causing orphans except for bad luck or bad parents but we pay for orphanages. We don't owe victims or orphans anything. But we do it anyways because as a society we chose to correct injustices. It's called taking responsibility and it requires some empathy.

In fact, putting people in historical categories based on nothing other than their skin color is, ironically, quite racist. — Tzeentch

:brow: Watch it.

Not to mention, the US government has already tried this through various programs and they have all had adverse effects, mostly benefiting those who didn't really need it and destroying the chances of those that did. — Tzeentch

Previous bad policy is no excuse to not pass good policy now. Totally irrelevant.

OK, but we cannot change what has happened so I guess what we do now still is the most important. Yet this begs the question: just what you mean by being actively anti-racist? — ssu

As a white man? I'd say it's using our white privilege to forward the agenda of oppressed people mostly by ensuring they are heard.

Just watch how most of this stuff normally plays out. Black people complain about a certain issue affecting their communities. Nobody listens or cares for years. Random white person (usually in the media) picks up on it and uses their reach to put the subject on the agenda. White person is celebrated for his stand against injustice. Black people are still not heard.

In HR management there's a very clear distinction between diversity and inclusivity. The US (and the Netherlands) are diverse countries with a lot of different minorities but most minorities aren't heard because their voices are not included in the narrative playing out in the media. This is reflected in our government, civil servants and business leadership as well: you need to be white, male, straight, religious (secular in NL), married, from an upper middle class family or better and have a university degree and then you'll be considered for the higher position. These people don't know what it's like to be discriminated against for being black, female or LGBQT, poor, (a)religious or uneducated. And that's why most of the problems affecting those people aren't solved.

Even worse is that a lot of these men think "they know what's going on on the ground".

These people don't know what it's like to be discriminated against for being black, female or LGBQT, poor, (a)religious or uneducated. — Benkei

Being black? They should. I'd be hard pressed to run into someone who doesn't know about slavery.

Female? Depends I guess. Personally I'd always hire female when it comes to customer service or frontend jobs. The data is there. Besides, most actual cases of qualified female applicants being denied a position are due to pettiness.

LGBTQ is complicated. What you do in the bedroom is nobody's business. Sexual conversation and displays of affection are generally disallowed in the workplace. Homosexuality is an orientation. At no point does it need to be known at work. Mannerism is mannerism and dressing like a clown or otherwise absurdly is a preference and choice independent to that. You cannot just "be unprofessional" or unqualified and get ahead over someone who is solely due to who you want to.. get down with. Something an employer does not ask and should never know. A straight man doesn't just blurt out "I have sex with women" at his job in front of his co workers for no reason. It's inappropriate.

I've yet to see a job that demands bank records. Naturally if you dress poorly you might not get a job someone better dressed does.

Religion is the same. Employers don't ask and religion is generally not part of a diverse workplace.

Uneducated... kind of goes without saying. Hey I mean if there's two doctors one who went to medical school for several years and one who read a few books and had a few successes, I'd take the first guy thank you.

You cannot compare racial discrimination with not hiring someone who's broke or unqualified. Really not hard to see why that's kinda harmful.

Do I write so strangely for you to miss the point I'm trying to make? Who are the people in power in businesses, politics and governmental positions? There's a certain type that makes success in life much more likely. The more boxes you check, the higher the chances.

How many rich, white men have had to worry about being grabbed in the ass in the first place at work? And then had to agonize about whether to lodge a complaint with HR and how that will affect the rest of their career?

How many rich, straight men have had to worry about whether they can talk about their dat from last night at the coffee corner? How many gay men have to worry about not mentioning that date was another guy for fear of being judged, shunned by colleagues or passed over for promotion?

How many transsexuals do you know in leadership positions?

How many US presidents have there been that were not openly religious? How often do politicians invoke God in the US? In the Netherlands this is reversed. We do not want openly religious political leaders. So even if we know they are religious, we do not accept them to be openly religious.

How many rich, white men know what problems you encounter when you can't read? Or have problems with simple arythmetic.

These are the same clueless white men that decide on policies and priorities.

Nobody partook in a crime either except for the criminal and his victim, yet we go out of our way to pay for police, find the culprit, — Benkei

Dealing with crime benefits the whole of society, and crime takes place, for the most part, in the present.

Making Americans pay reparations for slavery would be no different from forcing someone's grandson to pay compensation for a crime their grandfather committed. Unthinkable! And sadly, indicative of the totalitarian mindset that plagues much of the left nowadays.

Previous bad policy is no excuse to not pass good policy now. Totally irrelevant. — Benkei

As irrelevant as learning from past mistakes, no doubt.

Dealing with crime benefits the whole of society, and crime takes place, for the most part, in the present.

Making Americans pay reparations for slavery would be no different from forcing someone's grandson to pay compensation for a crime their grandfather committed. Unthinkable! And sadly, indicative of the totalitarian mindset that plagues much of the left nowadays. — Tzeentch

Yawn. That's almost an argument. First you cherrypick. How does helping orphans benefit society as a whole? Second, since when does alleviating poverty not help society as a whole? Third, since when is that a criterium to begin with? Roads only benefits people who drive cars. Courts only benefit crooks, lawyers and victims. Healthcare only benefits the sick. Etc.

In other words "what benefits society" is a totally arbitrary measure you pulled out of your ass to avoid actually having to think about how to solve systemic racism.

And then to top it off we get the "totalitarianism" faux shock cum straw man. Jesus.

How does helping orphans benefit society as a whole? — Benkei

Every child can become an orphan.

Second, since when does alleviating poverty not help society as a whole? — Benkei

Reparations do not alleviate poverty, because it does nothing to address the root causes of poverty.

Third, since when is that a criterium to begin with? — Benkei

It's a criterium for anyone who seeks to justify why states are allowed to force people to part with their money in the first place.

Roads only benefits people who drive cars. — Benkei

The vast, vast majority of people will drive a car in some point in their life, and good infrastructure is an important factor in economic prosperity. For example, roads also make sure your grocery store can be stocked with food every day.

Courts only benefit crooks, lawyers and victims. — Benkei

I don't think I need to explain the benefit to a society for having a working justice system. Besides, everyone can become a crook or a victim, so again there is no exclusion.

Healthcare only benefits the sick. — Benkei

Same thing. There is no exclusion here.

In other words "what benefits society" is a totally arbitrary measure you pulled out of your ass to avoid actually having to think about how to solve systemic racism. — Benkei

As you know, I don't believe the existence of systemic racism follows from whatever data has been presented.

Now we are talking about reparations which you brought up. I'll gladly talk about why I believe it is a terrible idea.

And then to top it off we get the "totalitarianism" faux shock cum straw man. — Benkei

Your mindset is totalitarian, even if you don't realize it. Being in favor of forcing people to pay for a crime they didn't commit, because of some misplaced sense of justice. You believe justice for some is more important than justice for others. You discriminate, based on personal preference, and think it would be good government policy.

Every child can become an orphan. — Tzeentch

So? What's the return for society to help orphans? By your own criteria that it "must benefit society" we shouldn't be helping them.

And I'll remind you: every child could be black.

Reparations do not alleviate poverty, because it does nothing to address the root causes of poverty. — Tzeentch

I never argued for reparations. In the example between you and I, where I took everyhing yesterday and today "we're all equal" I argued that the fact that no reparations would be paid meant it perpetuates injustice since the damage you suffered is not undone. The benefit I hold is not rightly mine as a result. Now, if you look at that from an intergenerational point of view and when you understand inheritance inequality, then the injustices from 400 years ago continue to exist in light of the fact that minorities are disproportionally poor to this day.

The vast, vast majority of people will drive a car in some point in their life, and good infrastructure is an important factor in economic prosperity. For example, roads also make sure your grocery store can be stocked with food every day. — Tzeentch

Uhuh... so it's fine as long as a majority wants something? And there's plenty of people who want less roads or different roads or at least NIMBY. It's mostly people who pay for it but companies that benefit from infrastructure. Also, you can have a working road system by only having users pay for it by using toll roads as it used to be done. So really, for the "benefit of society" is, as I said before, arbitrary.

I don't think I need to explain the benefit to a society for having a working justice system. Besides, everyone can become a crook or a victim, so again there is no exclusion. — Tzeentch

You could have a user-pay system for court systems as well. Except the poor wouldn't be able to afford it. But hey, fuck them right? Because alleviating poverty doesn't work any ways and in any case it infringes on my individual property rights.

There's a very good reason why court systems are open to all and it's not "for the benefit of society" unless of course this isn't a purely economic calculus but includes that it's to the benefit of society to have a just society. Except, when I argue for a just society to rectify past injustices that to this day affect people living now, causing them not to have the same opportunities than those people whose grandparents actually benefitted from the past injustices then I must conclude that "justice" isn't part of your calculations.

But we can go on. Food-stamps, only benefit the poor. Welfare, only benefits the unemployed. Pensions, only benefits people who get old enough. Education, only benefits people that have the capacity to study. Etc. Etc. Yet, all of these things are implemented due to a sense of social justice, which differ according to culture and history throughout the world.

As you know, I don't believe the existence of systemic racism follows from whatever data has been presented. — Tzeentch

You already agreed that blacks are disproportionally poor, incarcerated and killed in the US. You're not clear on what caused or causes that. That's not an argument against the existence of systemic racism.

Now we are talking about reparations which you brought up. I'll gladly talk about why I believe it is a terrible idea.

I didn't bring it up. You raised that straw man all by yourself.

Your mindset is totalitarian, even if you don't realize it. Being in favor of forcing people to pay for a crime they didn't commit, because of some misplaced sense of justice. You believe justice for some is more important than justice for others. You discriminate, based on personal preference, and think it would be good government policy. — Tzeentch

I haven't even mentioned specific policies yet so this is just you making stuff up. I'm in favour of social justice and believe pursuing social justice is more important than money.

Let's try again.

In the past white people took everything from slaves. These slaves were predominantly black. For 250 years everything was taken from them. For 250 years, white Americans benefitted from their labour. Then in 1865 it was abolished.

Let's start from there, aside from the wealth amassed for 250 years and passed on within then white communities through economic activity (distribution) and inheritance, they also received 300 USD per slave (on average) that's about 8,000 USD now (which in itself is an interesting redistribution of wealth from non-slave owners to wealthy slave owners). Slaves didn't receive anything.

I consider that an injustice do you? Black slaves suffered where white people benefitted, or not?

For 250 years slaves could not accumulate weath and distribute it among their communities or inherit from each other. This had a huge influence on the socio-economic development of slaves directly caused by the teribble racism from which white communities benefitted.

I consider that an injustice do you? Black slaves suffered where white people benefitted, or not?

Let's ignore everything that has happened since 1865 for a moment and to what extent continued racism held former slaves back.

That 300 USD in 1865, if they put that in a bank account, would be worth 2,509,156 USD today (at a compound interest of about 6% annually). An unjust benefit. There were almost 4 million slaves in 1860. Just based on the remuneration you're talking about 10 trillion USD today.

At least 2 million slaves went before that in the 250 year period but with much larger periods for compounding, you can imagine we're talking about at least a 20 trillion USD benefit today. Certainly some of that has trickled into black communities through economic activity since the end of segregation but before that, minimally so.

Former slaves meanwhile put all their savings in a bank account as well, that accrued to 0 USD today. But totally fair right because we're all under the same rules.

Dince 1865, former slaves only had labour to put in to create wealth and allow that to accumulate between generations. There have only been 5 generations since 1865 (30 years per generation). There's no way that it was possible for black people just using labour to generate 20 trillion USD of wealth today.

And this is reflected in the wealth gap between blacks and whites. White people hold about 10 times as much wealth as black people today.

My point is that nearly nothing has been done to remedy the injustices of the past, that this has disproportionally benefitted white people and disadvantaged black people and that this felt today. Indeed white people cannot claim a moral right to those benefits as the acquisition of that wealth was originally unjust. Yes, white people today cannot be blamed for the sins of their grandparents, but the converse that they therefore deserve what they have does not follow. Black people can largely not be blamed for their own socio-economic situation and they sure as hell don't deserve it. Given these two moral assessments, doing nothing perpetuates injustice.

And this is just the economics of the story. There was the rape, the beatings, the killings, the lynchings, the prohibition to learn to read or write, etc. And all the outright racism that happened well into the 60s in the US.

Some nice examples of ongoing racism in US society.

This totally misses the point. Systemic racism is not about "intent" or people "purposefully" doing things now to disadvantage blacks. Let's say yesterday it was legal to take all your shit and today we're like "oh, let's be buddies and be equal" but you still can't have your shit back. Are we really equal? Or did I get a nice headstart thanks to your old shit? — Benkei

Following this same line of thinking, we should be holding the descendants of illegal immigrants responsible for the illegal actions of their ancestors coming into a country and taking jobs away from blacks, and the mostly left-wing policies that allow that to happen.

The left-wing solution for racism is to be racist to some other race.

The whole "they took our jobs" skit is economically unsound. In my example, did I get a head start or do you think there's a level playing field?

The rest of your post is just a straw man. I haven't spoken about a solution yet. I have spoken about historic injustices and how they have been perpetuated instead of resolved and I've talked about society taking responsibility not holding white people responsible.

Then we call that “residual effects of those policies”, not “systemic racism”. — DingoJones

No. Because these “residual effects” are embedded in different facets of society such as racism in healthcare, economics, policing etc.

Calling it systemic racism drastically alters the problem and shifts the response to, perhaps coincidently perhaps not, unjustified social/political control. — DingoJones

No it does not. If I’m identifying a problem how am I altering the response? For example if I see racial bias in healthcare and I identify the physician response time as well as admissions rate/discharge between black patients and white patients and I notice a discrepancy in healthcare practice which favors more white patients it is indeed something that should be address.

Race doesnt really matter to anyone except the minorities of racists and people who think everyone is a racist. — DingoJones

This is simply ridiculous. If racism didn’t matter the civil rights movement wouldn’t exist. If racism didn’t matter we wouldn’t have done away with Jim Crow. If racism didn’t matter, at-will employers wouldn’t fire employees for making racist comments on social media. Racism and the discussion of it matters because it still affects many minorities and there still exist a stigma attached to many minority communities.

Also addressing the “everyone is racist” trope is a typical response to those who are not empathetic to the plight of minority communities who are dealing with racism. However, it is also the same talking point many of those of the deniers of “whites privilege” use to deflect from real social issues many minorities create.

Everyone else gets it, race is mostly irrelevant. — DingoJones

No, everyone doesn’t get it. But I’m sure indirectly you’re saying in effect everyone perhaps white who thinks like you get it. Not to presume YOUR ethnicity per se but again, this is a typical talking point.

Which effects of which policies? — NOS4A2

Healthcare, law enforcement policies (e.g Stop-and-Frisk) the education system, justice system.

None of those policies explicitly discriminate between races (as far as I’m aware). As such, any racism that results is the effort of individual racists, not any inherent racism in the system itself. I just can’t see any way around this.

None of those policies explicitly discriminate between races (as far as I’m aware). As such, any racism that results is the effort of individual racists, — NOS4A2

Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now you don't have to do that. All that you need to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues that he's campaigned on since 1964, and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger". By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this", is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger". So, any way you look at it, race is coming on the backbone.

Lee Atwater

You're wilfully ignorant.

None of those policies explicitly discriminate between races (as far as I’m aware). — NOS4A2

Of course you aren’t aware such is the life of the privileged and the ignorant. Normally I’d post articles and studies but considering I’ve heard that type of rhetoric before, and have wasted my time, I am not going to start again

You're wilfully ignorant.

Do you believe the same as Lee Atwater?

The people you support know systemic racism exists and weaponise it to appeal to American racists. The denial you have of it? Their propaganda and euphemisms working exactly as intended.

Of course you can’t such is the life of the privileged and the ignorant. Normally I’d post articles and studies but considering I’ve heard that type of rhetoric before and have wasted my time I am not going to start again

If you want to afford me privilege because of my skin color be my guest. But I reject it.

The people you support know it exists and weaponise it to appeal to American racists. The denial you have of it? Their propaganda and euphemisms working exactly as intended.

I have never supported Lee Atwater. But do you agree with his theory?

None of those policies explicitly discriminate between races (as far as I’m aware). As such, any racism that results is the effort of individual racists, — NOS4A2

You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. — Lee Atwater

:roll:

I don’t get the connection you’re trying to make here.

You understood it enough to try and reframe the discussion away from it.

You understood it enough to try and reframe the discussion away from it.

You used an overused quote from god-knows-when to imply I am appealing to, or are appealed by, American racists. I still cannot see the connection between what I was talking about and what Lee Atwater was talking about, however.

If you want to afford me privilege because of my skin color be my guest. But I reject it. — NOS4A2

No. Not affording anything except that the rhetoric that you espoused and your self admission of unawareness is apparent that your privilege, which is such that you do not experience that I, and other 45 million (plus or minus) blacks experience and have experienced are unaware or try not to be aware or reject the notion that such exists.

No. Not affording anything except that the rhetoric that you espoused and your self admission of unawareness is apparent that your privilege, which is such that you do not experience that I, and other 45 million (plus or minus) blacks experience and have experienced are unaware or try not to be aware or reject the notion that such exists.

I don’t deny that racism exists. My unawareness was in regards to the existence of explicitly racial policies in America, which may exist beyond what I know. I know of one explicitly racial policy here in the government of Canada, which gives preference to “visible minorities” in hiring practices.

I still cannot see the connection between what I was talking about and what Lee Atwater was talking about, however. — NOS4A2

None of those policies explicitly discriminate between races (as far as I’m aware). — NOS4A2

They don't need to...

You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. — Lee Atwater

Such policies are sold as race neutral, they are not. That a politician can pull an economic policy lever to effect blacks disproportionately, knowingly, without selling it in terms of race completely undermines your position. The politically empowered right know this, but they know their liberal supporters can't stomach outright racism, so it gets cloaked, and they bet on their liberal supporters getting duped and avoiding cognitive dissonance.

Why do you find this so hard?

No. Because these “residual effects” are embedded in different facets of society such as racism in healthcare, economics, policing etc. — Anaxagoras

The word “racism” is not necessary in your statement. At best you could say the residual effects of racism. There isnt That much that you are attributing to racism that couldnt also be attributed to socio-economics.

No it does not. If I’m identifying a problem how am I altering the response? — Anaxagoras

Well if the problem is a racist system the response is going to be much different, its going to justify social control. So mis-labelling the problem as systemic racism will result in unjustified social control.
Its not that identifying the problem is bad, its identifying the problem incorrectly. Thats what I think is happening with “systemic racism”. Its similar to when people say things like:
1 Nazi’s are bad
2 its ok to punch nazi’s
3 everyone that disagrees with my systemic racism narrative is a nazi
4 i should punch people who disagree with my narrative.

Its a word game, a tactic, to exercise social control. The Black Lives Matter founders freely admit and our proud to say that they are “trained Marxists”. If that doesnt cause you to take another look at the narrative being pushed then im not sure what to say to you.
As far as talking points, I understand that there are people who push a “right wing” counter-narrative that involves some of the things I am mentioning and I call that the same sort of game, and damn them for making normal words trigger words so its difficult (sometimes impossible) to have an actual discussion.
“White privilege” is a bullshit term too, and part of the same tactical playbook. Same with the way “racism” is now defined as “prejudice plus power”, a bullshit definition so people can be openly racist and not have to worry about being called a racist. It utterly fails under scrutiny. Its all part of this ideology being peddled in academia thats churning out useful idiots to join the sjw army.

This is simply ridiculous. — Anaxagoras

I agree, your strawman is ridiculous. I said “race”, not racism.
It matters if someone is racist, of course. Race itself isnt a big issue for anyone other than racists and people who think everyone is a racist. Two minority groups, with the majority of people realising its not really that important what someones race is. Ill admit the latter is catching on thiugh, many have bought the narratives of systemic racism, unconscious racism , identity politics etc etc.

No, everyone doesn’t get it. But I’m sure indirectly you’re saying in effect everyone perhaps white who thinks like you get it. Not to presume YOUR ethnicity per se but again, this is a typical talking point. — Anaxagoras

Ya I understand. I hear similar things that have been picked up and repeated as talking points, its what makes these discussions difficult to have. Anything anyone says can be weaponised by either side and then when anyone else touches the data or words or points then they get immediately grouped in with whichever side has co-opted the data, word or point.
Id like to note however that even though you attempt to avoid “racism” by not presuming my ethnicity, you still are making a judgement about people based on the colour of their skin, their white skin. Im not a white person, but that shouldnt make a difference. White skin shouldnt disqualify someones opinion any more than dark skin does.