If those in power regarding the rules for global markets(the head of states, and/or the actual authors of legislation regarding trade policy) are operating under a racist belief system, or continuing to implement an inherited racist based system, then we would certainly have a world-wide systemic form of racism.
However, and this is my basic point here, due to the nature of sovereign nations, it is not in my purview to tell them what to do. — creativesoul
There will still be fewer and fewer good quality American jobs available to those from unfortunate backgrounds/circumstances so long as these trade policies are not addressed — creativesoul
Being born black in this country, is one of those aforementioned unfortunate circumstances, and will continue to be as long as the racist beliefs are allowed to remain influential in American government. — creativesoul
I don't agree that racist beliefs are necessary at any stage, certainly not now. — Isaac
I'm not sure if I understand the question, but if you're asking what I think you're asking, then that would be a question about whether there exist racist belief, not whether they are necessary to explain the existence of systemic racism. — Isaac
I claimed that racist beliefs were not necessary to either cause or sustain systemic racism. — Isaac
You seemed to suggest that such a position left some acknowledged psychological feature unexplained. I'm asking what that feature is and how such a principle as the one I outlined above leaves it unexplained. — Isaac
Your last post basically outlines a common theory of racist belief propagation and perpetuation, but my point was not about the causes of racist belief, it was about the causes of systemic racism, so I'm not sure how you're relating the two issues. — Isaac
I don't think it would be or should be repurposed towards addressing international systemic racism/colonialism, I simply hope that the movement gathers enough momentum and scope to "Yes, and" the international stuff — fdrake
I think we'd be remiss not to explore those possibilities. But maybe you consider them sufficiently explored and satisfactorily put to bed already. Certainly I feel like I'm repeating myself a bit, so maybe there's not much more fruit to be had from this branch. — Isaac
It starts with a racist belief, systemic racism is the cause of that belief being put into the status quo of society. — Christoffer
Then when the common status quo narrative of racism is deleted from society as a norm, systemic racism still exists and program people into racist beliefs. — Christoffer
I pointed out how systemic racism form from a starting personal belief, then the system itself form new personal beliefs. That it's impossible to separate systemic racism with individual racist beliefs, they inform and sustain each other. — Christoffer
As they are inseparable, you cannot have one without the other. — Christoffer
Violence is the continuation of politics by different means. It's a matter of dispute resolution and therefore looting and rioting can be a means, and should be if the social institutions are incapable of change when they perpetuate injustices.
Did you read the articles StreetlightX posted earlier by any chance? — Isaac
What makes you think a racist belief is necessary to start it? — Isaac
Right. Which would support my claim. Still not seeing the psychological effect you think I'm missing. Is there any chance you could just name it, for clarity? — Isaac
I don't see how the existence of cognitive dissonance means that racist beliefs must have initiated systemic racism. — Isaac
This doesn't in any sense mean that wet grass causes rain. — Isaac
Rambly and really unhelpful at making explicit what he's talking about. — StreetlightX
You mean to say that a belief that invents a categorization of different people and the devaluation of people with dark skin isn't a racist belief? — Christoffer
I think calling people, who are by far mostly peaceful protesters, "rioters", is harmful to any possible progress because to many it would invalidate the grievances of the protesters (because, unfortunately, poisoning the well is totally effective as a rhetorical device and affecting public opinion, even if it's a fallacy).
I'll call that collateral damage and insist that it doesn't affect the righteousness of the cause being pursued, much as, when a bomb is dropped on a strategic bridge, we don't care about the loss of life of non-combatants.
If things don't materially change so that US society becomes more just because the political institutions are either a) incapable or b) unwilling to affect change, then riots definitely become an option in my book and ethically defensible. Just more collateral damage.
We need to make a sharp distinction between protesters and rioters. I have no problem with protesters. I am not calling peaceful protesters rioters, I am calling those who destroy businesses and property and assault business owners in the name of this cause "rioters."
I disagree that condemning the rioters invalidates the grievances of the protesters. I hope you agree that just because someone supports X, doesn't mean that they are condoned to achieve X at virtually any cost. — BitconnectCarlos
Wow, is that how the assignment of onus works? Based on which argument you personally find initially most plausible. You must be kept very busy indeed. Is there a phone number people have to ring to find out, or do you have a web service? — Isaac
merely to point out that it's not as obviously wrong as you make out. — Isaac
Your description of war is rather unimaginative and unnecessarily restrictive. As an example, US independence was neither about subjugation nor conquering territory. — Benkei
Violence is the continuation of politics by different means. It's a matter of dispute resolution and therefore looting and rioting can be a means, and should be if the social institutions are incapable of change when they perpetuate injustices. — Benkei
Popular uprisings have had effect not because they neatly toed the line government set out for them but precisely because of the threat that if their demands were not met, then... — Benkei
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.