No, because there would be a conflation with actively being racist and not trying to prevent racism. Being apathetic about racism doesn't equate to racism. But if I'm missing your point, let me know.



Well, no, it depends on the statistic you use and how you analyze it. You can't obviously draw sweeping conclusions from a single data point without some level of interpretation. And it's a strawman to suggest that that is where the idea of systemic racism arose. For example, I just provided Harry Hindu in the other s.r. thread with a statistic on drug arrests that had a whole study backing it up to show the significance of race in the disparity found.

The other point is that conscious racist motivation isn't required for systemic racism to obtain even though it is obviously there to a degree. The way the system functions is the root problem. Individual racists are important insofar as the system allows them to act with impunity, insofar as it allows environmental racism to filter through, but, theoretically, you could have a systemically racist system with no overt racists in it and just cops following procedures that disadvantaged/disfavoured minority communities.

Again, I don't know what the big block is here. The phrase is pretty much self-defining. Even Trump has recently acknowledged the existence of systemic racism, only he's tried to downplay it. But at least he's implicitly taken on some responsibility for dealing with its results on a systems level.

One can always use 'so far' as an excuse. It's a non sequitur because it's unfalsifiable. — Isaac

I think you need to look up the meaning of non-sequitur.

In any case, there already have been these transitions and reforms without massive riots so the idea that peaceful means don't accomplish anything is just wrong. If you want to extend things even further boycotts are a legitimate method. There are steps between peaceful, non-violent protest and indiscriminate destruction of local businesses.

I've literally just detailed exactly what they've done wrong, it's several thousand times greater loss of legally owed earnings than burning down the store lost. — Isaac

Ok but you're sidetracking the argument. You asked me what my position was and I basically said "X" - now you're like "Well what about A-Z? but you're not taking issue with X. All I'm going for here is X. We can talk about A-Z another time.

But racism is a belief. So without explicit racial policies, we can only search for it in the minds and expressions of a racist, not in the general outcomes of police interactions. That’s my block. For the purpose of this thread I will assume systemic racism does exist (and I believe it does in the form of “positive discrimination”), and I also believe it exists in the minds of some police officers, so perhaps to eliminate it minds must be changed instead of policies.

No, because there would be a conflation with actively being racist and not trying to prevent racism. Being apathetic about racism doesn't equate to racism. But if I'm missing your point, let me know. — Baden

Well I had in mind less the apathy (but really, I think thats an serious issue in all of this too) and more in mind cops like the asian one in the Floyd murder...he should have done something and he didnt and thats a serious part of the problem too imo.

"If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." ~Frederick Douglass

“Washing one’s hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.” ~Paulo Freire

"I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." ~Elie Wiesel

If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.” ~Archbishop Desmond Tutu

"The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people." ~Martin Luther King, Jr

Being apathetic about racism doesn't equate to racism. But if I'm missing your point, let me know. — Baden

Please go on; explain.

Please go on; explain. — 180 Proof

That I don't draw an equivalence re racism between racist cops and those who know about them but don't protest them (whether they be other cops or not and whether their neglect be due to apathy or akrasia). It's possible not to act against racism without being racist. However, you can't escape culpability. If you don't act, you are culpable, and every one of the quotes above I agree with 100%.

...he should have done something and he didnt and thats a serious part of the problem too imo. — DingoJones

And why? Maybe he was a racist too. Maybe he didn't give a shit. Maybe both. And maybe the culture and system he was a part of militated against action. In every case, culpable. But the latter is where systemic racism comes in and where maybe the balance can be tipped against the racists and towards those who might do something if they had the backup.

Policies don't have beliefs. Positive discrimination is a policy. By your own logic, it can't be racist. Of course it's not in any case, it's reparative of racism. The idea that you can start a clean slate as soon as you dispose of those directly affected by explicit racism is rubbish. Wealth and privilege are passed down. America's wealth was built on and stolen largely from slaves and then concentrated and channeled through generations of those who made them slaves. If I steal all your shit and use it to put generations of my family in a better position socially and economically than yours, my ancestors don't get to turn around and tell yours everything's just hunky-dory now because the direct party to the exploitation is dead.

From whence systemic racism come if not from systems put in place by racists?
— creativesoul

From racist outcomes. A system in which more black people are disporportionally murdered by the state is so regardless if every single government officer was an avowed anti-racist. What matters is results, not intention. — StreetlightX

We're talking past one another a bit... I think.

While I understand the (legal culpability)need to avoid accusations/charges/claims of intention, the results are not the origen, which is what I was getting at. In order to stamp out racism, particularly systemic racism, we must identify the problem(s) and doing that requires looking into it's origens. There is no doubt that the effects of racist belief and policies remain extant. So, in that sense, the effects of racism no doubt prove the existence of it. However, in order to get a full view of those effects/affects, we must also acquire knowledge of exactly how racist belief has been legalized/legitimized - empowered - throughout American history as well as how those policies affected/effected black Americans over the centuries, particularly after the Civil War. Those effects/affects remain to a large degree... in the results - as you say. But, we must tie this all together - in a sort of causal chain of events - for that is the only way to shine much needed light upon the residual effects/affects of clearly racist belief and the policies stemming from those beliefs.

That is an eye opener(well for those who've not suffered from racism, or those who have but not known).

After one's eyes are opened, then it's up to them whether or not to do something about it.

The more important issue here is that actual racist beliefs are not currently required to perpetuate systemic racism. — Isaac

On it's face, this is completely false. For the system itself is existentially dependent upon racist belief, as I've argued from/for common sense regarding this already. The system has as it's very structural support... actual racist beliefs. At the core...

Whether or not any particular individual currently residing/operating in the system holds racist beliefs is another matter altogether. The more important matter though, is whether or not they are willing to do anything about it.

I recently listened to a lady talking to an audience of white people. She asked for a show by raised hands of anyone who would like to be treated in the same way that black people are treated in the US. No hands. She then repeated the instructions... and again asked for anyone in the room would like be treated the way that black people are treated in America to raise their hand. Again... no hands.

She went on...

So this shows us that we are all aware of what's going on here. None of us want to be treated as such. So then, why and/or how is it ok to stand aside and allow others to be treated in such ways? What makes it ok to do that? Indifference towards racism perpetuates racism.

Shoot the elephant!

It's possible not to act against racism without being racist. However, you can't escape culpability. If you don't act, you are culpable, and every one of the quotes above I agree with 100% — Baden

You lost me. :confused:

It’s less stupid than suggesting violence and vandalism against the innocent... — NOS4A2

Who are the guilty?

...my parents never raised me to be racist nor a bigot, and that humanity is the species to which I belong. However, given the racism my parents have experienced they’ve instilled the thought in me that regardless of my own beliefs I will not always be treated as an American and much less as a human being by every white person. Due to my own personal experiences with racism it has validated that and because of that, I fear passing this on to my children. — Anaxagoras

Again, unless I'm misunderstanding you, I find no reason to suppress such belief. Pass it on, for your children's sake. It is beyond a reasonable doubt that some white people will not treat you or them with the basic modicum of respect, simply because you and they are human beings. That's the unfortunate reality of the world, and it transcends race my friend. There are all sorts of ways that people exclude others and devalue/belittle them based upon some arbitrary difference such as race, religion, personal tastes, personal values, ethnicity, socio-economic circumstances, etc.

It is important to not fall into the same line of fallacious thinking that many white racists share. They see some heinous crime being committed by a black person, and then conclude that all blacks are... pick your fallacious poison. It's wrong on several levels.

Not all whites are racist. Some will treat you and your children with respect...

...but not all. Allowing them to realize that is to prepare them properly for the world in which we live.

You lost me as to why I lost you. Maybe my definition of 'racist' is stricter than yours, but I have no intention of being down the wrong end of the pitch so the goal is wide open and feel free to score.

Trying to think this through to the end...

Is there any way to solve the problem of systemic racism without overthrowing the whole system?

And If there is not, then you are racist, or at least culpable to it, if you are not a revolutionary?

I think you need to look up the meaning of non-sequitur. — BitconnectCarlos

I don't think I do need to look it up, because it's probably Latin.

Either way, you inferred that one should not make a negative judgement about a tactic simply on the grounds that it hadn't worked 'so far'. It does not follow from the fact that a tactic hasn't worked 'so far' that one should suspend judgement on it because this would lead to suspending judgement infinitely as it will be in a permanent state of only having failed 'so far'. Thus you render judgement of a tactic obsolete. Do you I to look up ad absurdum too?

there already have been these transitions and reforms without massive riots so the idea that peaceful means don't accomplish anything is just wrong. — BitconnectCarlos

Yep, we've already established that in some cases some types of reform can be achieved through peaceful means, we're talking about the cases and reform types where peaceful means seem to have failed in a timescale those suffering from the injustice feel is no longer reasonable to ask them to wait.

you're sidetracking the argument. You asked me what my position was and I basically said "X" - now you're like "Well what about A-Z? — BitconnectCarlos

No, it's not about sidetracking to some other issue. It's fundamental to your argument that the properties and livelihoods being damaged in the riots are both innocent and a net loss to the community. I'm presenting data which contradicts that notion. Companies like Target are both fully complicit in creating the circumstances of injustice being protested against, and they cause more financial hardship directly by their employment practices than the total amount of financial hardship putting them out of business causes. The amount of wages and benefits workers lose by losing their jobs there is less than the amount of legally entitled wages and benefits they lose by being employed there.

If you want to extend things even further boycotts are a legitimate method. There are steps between peaceful, non-violent protest and indiscriminate destruction of local businesses. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes. Again, no one here is denying that alternative methods exist and in some cases, for some reforms, those alternatives might work.

What's being argued here is not that no form of protest works other than rioting. What's being argued here is that rioting is one form of protest which can work and - given the scale of the suffering these people are under - the consequences of rioting are either trivial (in the case of a bit of bystander property damage), or actually legitimate (in the case of damage to the property of those partly responsible for, or complicit in, the situation).

There is a situation which causes the deaths of thousands of people a year, and causes ten times that amount to suffer injustices (this much is basically indisputable). Some of those people think they have a way of telling those in power how they feel, and maybe getting them to do something about it - they're perfectly justified in their belief that this way might work (there's good examples of it having done so), and they're angry, so they really want to let their oppressor know just how angry they are. And they're damn right to be angry because the scale of injustice is huge. You're wanting to take that away from them on the ground that a few people might have to find another job.

You're asking a whole population who've been serially murdered, abused and downtrodden, when considering tactics against their oppressors, to have as their primary consideration, the job security of a handful of workers.

the system itself is existentially dependent upon racist belief, as I've argued from/for common sense regarding this already. — creativesoul

You mean...

Here's a bit of common sense...

Wherever there have never been racist beliefs, there could not have ever been unacceptable racially motivated policies. — creativesoul

That's what you call an argument is it?

However, in order to get a full view of those effects/affects, we must also acquire knowledge of exactly how racist belief has been legalized/legitimized - empowered - throughout American history as well as how those policies affected/effected black Americans over the centuries, particularly after the Civil War. Those effects/affects remain to a large degree... in the results - as you say. — creativesoul

No. The 'effects' are racist, not merely a result of prior 'causal' racism. Racism is dead black men at dispropotionate rates, not some epiphenomenon whose real centre of gravity is somewhere else. I don't give a shit about 'knowledge'. George Floyd was not some epistemic glitch, he, and thousands like him, are dead people, not an after school fair project for you to 'acquire knowledge' about.

Those who whine about broken windows and have nothing to say about broken black bodies ought to shut the fuck up. Protestor violence is counter-violence and those santimoniously crying about it without having a word to say about the pervasive social violence visited upon those same protestors are hypocritical wanks who don't give a shit about violence at all - expect when it is practised by those of the wrong color.

Those who whine about broken windows and have nothing to say about broken black bodies ought to shut the fuck up. — StreetlightX

:fire: :clap:

:brow:

You're a bit confused, my man, missing the forest for the trees: in a nutshell - why no one should buy this used roll of toilet paper Bolton's selling.

Rabble armies are like cluster bombs; they tend to result in a certain amount of collateral damage. Regrettable but sometimes necessary.

Rabble armies are like cluster bombs; they tend to result in a certain amount of collateral damage. Regrettable but sometimes necessary. — unenlightened

Cluster bombs are quite complex explosives intended for a very specific targets and a specific attack method, actually. Better figure of speech would be of high altitude bombing with free fall bombs using only map coordinates. Some of the hopefully hit what you are intending to hit, others, who cares?

I think we should note just how earlier the US has avoided change and why after similar incidents for many decades now, be it in the 90's and later, same issues come up. What did happen after the Rodney King beating and the riots? What happens after the protests? I'm genuinely hopeful about police reform, but of course that "whining about broken windows" or vandalized George Washington statues IS ALREADY used as a countermethod to poison the moment and draw people away from the consensus gained in the condemnation of police brutality. Silly season is starting, so time to juxtapose the American people to two different camps. Time to divide the people. And it works, every time.

Besides, there's millions of guns in the US and you have now record gun sales, so more guns I guess is the American answer:

Gun sales and accompanying FBI background checks spiked last month, breaking records as the nation weathered the coronavirus pandemic and riots broke out in major cities over the death of George Floyd.

Already this year, the FBI has recorded 15 million background checks in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, closing in on breaking last year’s record of 28 million background checks.

A total of 3,091,455 checks were recorded in May, the highest May number since the system was created 22 years ago, and the third highest month on record. The highest number of checks in one month occurred in March, which recorded a record 3,740,688 checks.

Your nation can always find ways to disappoint you and make things even worse.

Consensus is ruling class poison. More division, more agitation.

No one needs 'consensus' about the murder of black people. It simply needs to stop. No more, no less. No justice, no peace.

The solution?

↪StreetlightXThe solution? — ssu

Unconditional surrender.

No more state murder of black people. Ideally, no more state murder of any people. This is not hard.

Until then set fucking fire to everything, make everyone uncomfortable, and heighten every tension available.

Unconditional surrender. — unenlightened

Yes, that's typical what protesters do.

No more state murder of black people. Ideally, no more state murder of any people. This is not hard. — StreetlightX

Did I mention about the record gun sales in your country? I think I did above.

I think it is hard...especially for Americans.

Not my country. My country is arguably worse.

Please don't say that you live in the UK.