I don’t know. Do you? Incontrovertible truth is what we’re after, no?

No, I don't. Because apparently the multitude of research, the protests, the media publicity, the anguish, none of it is good enough for people like you. And when asked, you have no idea either. So at this point, I have no idea.

It's almost like being asked to 'prove the point' is meaningless bad-faith misdirection that cannot be given any content.

I understand that if you believe racism is institutionalised in America that you find it abhorrent. Who in their right mind wouldn’t? But if that’s incorrect and we all go down that road in an angry mob then we miss the real problem and by missing the real problem, or source of the problem, then we may contribute to it.

the protests, the media publicity, the anguish, — StreetlightX

Does any of this contribute to revealing the real problem?

Apparently not to you.

It’s possible that you’re playing into the hands of the real problem.

If you cannot answer the question of what it would take, then you were never interested to begin with. Real problem found.

Problem found. — StreetlightX

Do you mean that people like me are the problem?

Contributory, yes. You work to excuse injustice.

Have you ever considered this; that Trump voters and Sander’s voters might both be against the same thing.

No, because this is not about voters.

No, it's a nation divided.

It already was.

One week of returning apologists and I'm already fed up.

Why not remove the word racism and instead say "systemic injustice", "systemic greed", "systemic corruption"?

Why not remove the word racism and instead say "systemic injustice", "systemic greed", "systemic corruption"? — Brett

Why not all of those?

It's hard to deny that the protests are at least achieving something. If we want to address other subsets of injustice, why don't we just do that?

It's hard to deny that the protests are at least achieving something. — Echarmion

I don’t think you’ll see much change. There will be changes in the police force because that’s the flashpoint. But the shops in Manhattan will claim their insurance and as a result they might have a better month than they might have had otherwise. But those who have a small business in the worst hit neighbourhoods will struggle to recover, some will some won’t, but that means no profits for some time.

People all around the world are hurting, but you could not claim that racism is behind it. People throughout America are hurting but again you could not claim that racism is the cause. The fact that blacks might hurt more than whites doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s the result of racism.

There are groups who will not be hurt: the rich, academia, the media, religious institutions and probably a few more I haven’t considered. They have nothing to lose. Look at those who lose nothing then look at those who do. Is there a divide there? When there’s a gap you don’t fall in between the two sides, you end up on one side or the other.

Blacks may be more affected than whites, I don’t know enough to prove that one way or the other, the symptoms may take different forms with different groups, but to assume that it’s racism removes the focus from the real problem that affects all people, not just Americans but all people across the world. It seems to me that “systemic racism” would be a very convenient deflection from those who remain untouched.

Because that would be denying reality. When certain black men are thee times as likely to die at the hand of police officer than comparable white men, to say 'why are you bringing race into this' would be - I dunno, it wouldn't even be denying reality, it would be an active attempt to warp it. The real question is why people are so threatened by race. Why the anxiety over admitting race into the field?

Because that would be denying reality. — StreetlightX

Which part is denying reality?

The fact that the injustice invovled is specifically racial (which is not to say only racial).

Well I think we’re going in circles now, don’t you think?

You're the one asking questions without specifying what qualifies for an answer. So you tell me.

I already did.

I don’t know. Do you — Brett

Indeed.

The fact that the injustice invovled is specifically racial (which is not to say only racial). — StreetlightX

This confuses me. Is it poorly written or do you mean it?

What about it confuses you?

Actually I might know the problem. Refer here and here. Let me know what you think,

That the injustice is specifically racial. But then you add but not only racial, which suggests there are injustices against blacks that aren’t racial. So whatever those other acts might be they are not racial, therefore, it seems to me, that the injustices cannot be specifically racial.

because poverty disproportionally affects black people, this means that class issues are directly race issues. — StreetlightX

Is this what you’re directing me to?

Well, yes, and the words I wrote around those words too.