We're talking about "systemic racism" being denied. The very first post:

... is there "systematic racism," absolutely not. — Sam26

So, now we've advanced to the point where what actually happened in the thread is being misrepresented and denied. Not exactly progress, is it?

What's ironic about discussions about economic redistribution based on race is that it parallels the very same racist policies that it is trying to help undo the consequences of. — Judaka

That's what "undoing the consequences" means though, right?

I'm very much for increasing economic redistribution, I think America is doing far less than it should but none of the benefits of economic redistribution should be used as an argument for doing it based on race. — Judaka

Why not? It seems very obviously false to say that no problem can possibly be solved by doing something based on race.

As for people who live today, racism and sexism are inexcusable. We must do what we can. — Judaka

Including redistribution based on race to reverse it?

I don't really get why other people being stupid justifies you saying something stupid. StreetlightX isn't saying stupid stuff because he's agitated he's always like this. I'm going to be honest and say that I put you in the same boat as him, banno, fxdrake and other suspect posters on this forum. Adding Benkei to my list now.

I did read some of the comments, I just don't think you appreciate what makes what you're talking about difficult. It's against the law for systemic racism to exist, I think that for some people, that alone makes it hard to say that it does. I just haven't read anyone saying anything like "big picture, there's no difference between how the police or courts treat black people and others" or similar absurdities. Maybe some of the posters are making those claims, didn't read every post.

you in the same boat as him, banno, fxdrake and other suspect posters on this forum. Adding Benkei to my list now. — Judaka

#Squad.

I did read some of the comments, — Judaka

It's a 5 page thread. Go read it all before clumsily inserting out-of-context criticisms.

What does the rest of the thread have to do with you comparing systemic racism to the aftereffects of slavery and the subsequent injustices?

Anyway, I'm sorry I made your naughty list, Santa. If I'm good for the rest of the year, I hope you'll reward me by reading the stuff I wrote. Thanks.

We're talking about "systemic racism" being denied. The very first post:

... is there "systematic racism," absolutely not.
— Sam26 — Baden

Is that really indicative of the general posts though?

You don't need to give me the context for why you were frustrated and said something silly, you can just say that you misspoke and didn't mean it.

Not exactly progress, is it? — Baden

No, unfortunately it’s not.

thank you for your non-reply to all the rather clear questions I posed. Also thanks for the Orwellian turn of redefining my anti-racist stance as racist. It's good to see how the apologists' mind work.

I answered your questions, you just don't like the answers. Suffering happens to people, not groups, the people you are talking about are gone and there's nothing you can do for them.

You want to say "black people should do this" and "white people should pay" and have me seriously respond using your asinine framing? You must be joking.

You came into a discussion you haven't fully read to pick out one (justified) rhetorical point amongst all the other substantive ones as a means to mount a misguided attack on those who of us who, in this thread, are arguing: Systemic racism exists. Because that is the reason the thread was set up:

I've started this thread for the sole reason of allowing those who want to claim it doesn't their say — Baden

So, maybe you didn't read the OP either. Anyhow, seeing as you've said you agree with my description of those who think there's no systemic racism in the US then we're actually expressing the same substantive point. If you want something to argue with, feel free to address this:

Systemic racism obtains when a system(s) function (regardless of explicit rules) to favour certain racial groups over others. It doesn't require overt individual racists (though it may protect and even reward them) nor does it necessarily require any conscious acts of racism at all (and obversely you could have conscious acts of racism in a system where no systemic racism exists, only rather than being performative of the system, they would be antithetical to it). Systems are culturally contextual, they're embedded in cultures and how they function depends on their relationship to the culture they're in. So, often it's what the system allows rather than what the system demands that's important. E.g. if you've got a justice or policing system embedded in a culture that's only recently emerged from the acceptance of explicitly institutionalised racism, you need extremely strong safeguards to avoid the continuance of implicit racism in whatever ostensibly non-racist institutions are substituted. Not having those safeguards in place means the explicit racism of before doesn't just disappear but finds footholds in the new institutions and festers there looking for opportunities to express itself.

Systemic racism occurs in all areas of social life, policing, housing, education etc. And again, it's not primarily about explicitly racist acts or explicitly racist policies or legislation but how things work in practice to disadvantage communities of color. Here's an example relating to housing.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/reports/2019/08/07/472617/systemic-inequality-displacement-exclusion-segregation/

"For much of the 20th century households of color were systematically excluded from federal homeownership programs, and government officials largely stood by as predatory lenders stripped them of wealth and stability.

In the decades preceding the Fair Housing Act, government policies led many white Americans to believe that residents of color were a threat to local property values. For example, real estate professionals across the country who sought to maximize profits by leveraging this fear convinced white homeowners that Black families were moving in nearby and offered to buy their homes at a discount. These “blockbusters” would then sell the properties to Black families—who had limited access to FHA loans or GI Bill benefits—at marked-up prices and interest rates. Moreover, these homes were often purchased on contracts, rather than traditional mortgages, allowing real estate professionals to evict Black families if they missed even one payment and then repeat the process with other Black families.57 During this period, in Chicago alone, more than 8 in 10 Black homes were purchased on contract rather than a standard mortgage, resulting in cumulative losses of up to $4 billion. Blockbusting and contract buying were just two of several discriminatory wealth-stripping practices that lawmakers permitted in the U.S. housing system."

Most likely, as with you, objections to the existence of systemic racism turn on a misunderstanding of what it is. As if it's just the type of claim that police are racist or police departments have racist policies. That's really not it. It's usually far subtler than that and, for being so, all the more pernicious.
— Baden

You cannot "reverse" racism and sexism, you can only stop it. Economic redistribution based on race only reinforces the narrative of racial histories while excluding poor people from different backgrounds in the name of an irrational interpretation of fairness based on group identities. The benefits of economic redistribution cannot be used to justify doing it by race.

what you did was go off on a monologue. But let's try again :

What number of white males have been confronted with negative consequences as a result from the colour of their skin or being a man in the past 450 years in the USA?

What number of black people have been confronted with negative consequences as a result from the colour of their skin in the past 450 years in the USA?

What number of women have been confronted with negative consequences as a result from being female?

Should damages be repaired or not?

Who benefitted from the damages caused?

What has been done to address these injustices? — Benkei

It's against the law for systemic racism to exist — Judaka

OK, you don't understand what it is either. Read up on it. Systemic racism can and does occur within the boundaries of law.

OK, you don't understand what it is either. Read up on it. Systemic racism can and does occur within the boundaries of law. — Baden

It's against the law for systemic racism to exist, I think that for some people, that alone makes it hard to say that it does. — Judaka

Murder is prohibited too. Yet it happens. But then maybe you were trying to say that because it's prohibited, people find it difficult to accept it exists and therefore have problems admitting to its existence.

Systemic racism isn't prohibited. That's a large part of the problem. E.g.

Blockbusting and contract buying were just two of several discriminatory wealth-stripping practices that lawmakers permitted in the U.S. housing system — Baden

You cannot "reverse" racism and sexism, you can only stop it. — Judaka

But of course both have long lasting economic consequences, and those you can reverse.

Economic redistribution based on race only reinforces the narrative of racial histories while excluding poor people from different backgrounds in the name of an irrational interpretation of fairness based on group identities. The benefits of economic redistribution cannot be used to justify doing it by race. — Judaka

Presumably we agree that if it were the case that the only poor people were of one specific race, doing it by race would be justified. Helping all poor people is of course always preferable, and there might not practically any good reason not to do that. But it's still better to do something rather than nothing, no?

My post doesn't become a monologue just because you refuse to read and deal with what I'm saying. I understand your argument perfectly fine, I've articulated my rejection of it, I'm not surprised that it went over your head but I'm done responding to you. OP is getting annoyed at me derailing his thread by responding to your garbage.

I do not acknowledge the long-lasting economic consequences in the way that people want me to because it means continuing to treat black people as having a separate history because of their skin colour. I reject it, people are people, they aren't Africans, they're Americans, who share the same history as all Americans as Americans. Slavery was people hurting people, I won't view history the same way that the slavers we call evil did.

I'm not American, I'm Australian and for me, once you're Australian that's it. There's no "white Australian history" and "foreigner Australian history" because that's a dumb, racist, exclusive attitude that makes it sound like you need to be white to be Australian which is bullshit.

I'm a fan of people such as Andrew Yang and UBI, let economic redistribution be a way of reducing divisions between Americans rather than highlighting them.

another dodge. Just answer the questions and pretend I'm too stupid to distill the implied answers in your monologue.

Aboriginals.

I am not saying that laws cannot be interpreted (unambiguously) to be beneficial for white people or unfairly implemented in a way that hurts coloured people but rather that the language of the law does not specifically mention race. Honestly, the emphasis on historical racism is unhelpful because here, today, racism exists and among many areas of society. I think that because historically, the law has mentioned race and treated people differently based on race, there's some confusion about whether that's what's being talked about.

It's just a term to me, I'm no expert on US law but systemic racism is not as overt as it was in the past, it is not an open secret. We can simply see it and analyse it and that's how we know.

What are you unsatisfied with? Don't ask me to respect your intelligence, I'm convinced that you are an idiot. I cannot debate someone who simply ignores what I write, what insurance do I have that you won't simply ignore what I write in the future as well, calling it a monologue? lol It is a waste of my time.

I do not acknowledge the long-lasting economic consequences in the way that people want me to because it means continuing to treat black people as having a separate history because of their skin colour. I reject it, people are people, they aren't Africans, they're Americans, who share the same history as all Americans as Americans. Slavery was people hurting people, I won't view history the same way that the slavers we call evil did. — Judaka

What do you mean you don't "acknowledge them in the same way?" It's a question of fact, not of acknowledgement. Either there are economic consequences or there are not.

I'm a fan of people such as Andrew Yang and UBI, let economic redistribution be a way of reducing divisions between Americans rather than highlighting them. — Judaka

The thing is that one of the criticisms of UBI is that it's not going to do anything to address the inequality that's already present.

Right. So, you get to ignore my questions, rant a bit, call me names etc.? Just answer the questions. That's all I ask.

What's ironic about discussions about economic redistribution based on race is that it parallels the very same racist policies that it is trying to help undo the consequences of. The government recognises your right to specific economic and social advantages by virtue of your race. They are specifically crafted advantages based on your race. It's not comparable to interpreted advantages based on statistics on race. — Judaka

States and economies acting in ways that disproportionately disadvantage non-whites is bad.

That's exactly the stuff pointed to by systemic racism critique.

If you make policies that address the needs of the poor and disenfranchised, you will make policies that effect people differently along race lines if the demography of poverty is already race skewed. It is already race skewed.

It would end up being race skewed even if articulated in non-racial terms.

I didn't word that as well as I could have, what I mean is that the emphasis on recording inequality by race is optional. There are wealthy cities and poor cities, poor parts of town and wealthy parts and there's a reason behind the wealth and the poverty and the history of racism has a large role in it, that cannot be denied.

As someone who hates to see poverty, particularly as widespread and unaddressed as it is in the states, it's a really sad state of affairs. I want this issue of poverty to be addressed in a humanitarian way that doesn't inflame and emphasise racial differences. I see this as separate issues, economic redistribution and then reducing the importance of race. I don't accept economic redistribution that reinforces racial histories and inequalities. The racial inequality is fact but it's overly emphasised and promotes racialised worldviews.

That's all I'll say because I am derailing this thread and OP complained about it. If you make a thread on this topic then I will probably post there but otherwise I'm going to stop posting here about unrelated topics after this.


You might persuade me by telling me what you're unsatisfied with but you want me to just pretend I failed to answer all of your questions and reanswer them? That appears unreasonable to me. I'm also interested as to whether you think that I also have failed to understand your position, Your questions are also really stupid, I don't know how you don't see that but you actually seem kind of proud of them? Okay, since you asked like three times, I'll answer them again but this time I'll number them and answer them directly.

1. I don't know

2. I don't know

3. I don't know

4. The dead are dead, I'm an atheist and a pragmatist, for these people who have suffered due to sexism, slavery and racism 100-400 years ago, you are too late. You cannot compensate them or help them in anyway. But I do understand what you are trying to say and it's complete nonsense. You are trying to say that because slavery affected black people and sexism affected women, that this has something to do with black people and women who are alive today. However, take slavery, individuals suffered horribly. They were degraded, humiliated, harmed physically and psychologically, deprived of freedom and dignity. Then they died. It's sad but you cannot help this individual and helping people who have the same skin colour is to my mind, an absolutely outrageous and absurd way of trying to help. A total insult to the actual person who had a name and character, they're not just a black person who can be helped by helping other black people.

If someone claimed they could help me by helping other white people, I'd flip my shit.

5. Again, the landowner who owned slaves and his wife, got to live better lives by having slaves. They didn't have to do the chores and hard labour nor pay their workers. You want me to say white people but you should already know that I won't say that. Is it complex for you?

6. You can't hold the dead accountable as you know nor can you help the dead, the injustices cannot be addressed. If you want to address injustices, then there are plenty of people today who aren't having their injustices addressed.

Yes, it would, what's your point?