Social "Systemic Racism"

[Wolfbrigade]

"systematic racism" is a canard to redistribute wealth and power. it is newspeak, nothing more.

Term "newspeak" is newspeak.

 

[Starman]

 

[Teen Wolf]

Nah, I was just laughing at your retardness.

 

[BearGrounds]

Obviously based on what? The fact that the DOJ has uncovered system racism in the police like it did with the Ferguson Police Department?

Super vague wording there, with regards to the findings. Call me crazy, but I'm skeptical of what's considered racist these days.

 

[Starman]

Nah, I was just laughing at your retardness.

 

[MaxMMA]

This rant has issues, but I'll just stick to assumption you are making regarding crime stats and stop and frisk.

https://archive.thinkprogress.org/w...e-guns-or-drugs-than-minorities-9bf579a2b9b3/

Black people were half as a likely to found carrying a weapon as white people when stopped. 1/3rd less likely to have contraband.

Proof that when it comes to multiple areas of criminal activity whites are committing more. Yet they have the advantage of being investigated less. That's a flaw in the justice system. One that is rooted in race. Also known as systemic racism.

From the article you linked "Officers may be netting more successful stops of white New Yorkers because they are only likely to stop a white person when they actually suspect that person of committing a crime." (As it should be for everyone)

Again, if blacks commit the majority of crime in a particular area, why would they stop and frisk more whites than blacks?

I'm not even saying that this isn't racist, because the article actually gives two examples of police overreach, however what were the demographics of those neighborhoods that the stop and frisk policies were conducted in? Once again, if blacks are committing more crime in those areas than whites, how does it help them to stop and frisk whites disproportionally to blacks?

And just for the record, I'm against any stop and frisk policies, as I am against the war on drugs, as I am against gun control, and basically any laws that make it police business to stick their nose in our citizens business.

But the article doesn't prove that whites were committing disproportionally more crime than blacks as that poster insinuated and you claimed. Nor does is prove systematic racism as that's one place. It just proves that NYPD probably has some racist tendencies.

I'm not sure why people are so afraid of looking at the truth, but the facts are the facts and the facts are minorities commit a disproportionate amount of crime in the United States. It stands to reason that the more crime someone commits the more likely they are to have police interaction.

And again, I don't agree with most of the laws that allow those interactions to take place. But I also don't think there is a scheme in place (purposely or otherwise) to hold any particular group of people down.

 

[spamking]

I'm sure there are parts of the US and even the world where racists thrive. Heck, there are probably places where profiling folks based on stereotypes is encouraged. That profiling could very well be justified based on the behaviors of the locals . . . who knows. If "you" don't want to be known as a meth head or druggie then maybe don't do drugs. If "you" don't want to be called a thug then don't act like a thug.

 

[MMAGA]

Look no further than the prison industrial complex. On average prisoners in a state are 5 times more likely to be black than white, and that number gets as high as 10 to 1 in a few states including Minnesota.

We throw the book at African Americans, imprisoning more on a per crime basis, and then wonder where all the fathers are at. You see prisons profiting off of more inmates and they lobby for harder laws that disproportionately affect black people and minorities. We've been seeing it for decades starting in a time period we all acknowledge was racist. It's cause and effect that's disrupted hundreds of thousands of families for generations now.

You have impoverished urban areas with high crime that are made up of black people, these are places that were originally mixed and successful but the highways were built that led to suburbs with new homes and you had the banks giving loans to whites and excluding blacks. The white owned businesses, remember this is years before blacks were even allowed to vote, moved to the suburbs with the white population and were left with urban areas that were gutted of employment opportunities with many many years of severe racism to follow.

Now those areas have high crime and you have people blaming rap music and bad culture when it's the direct cause lack of opportunity, lack of resources, and direct racism in government and law that further destablized these communities.

Systemic racism is in the roots of our society, it's not direct racism because it mostly gets by with apathy and denial. It's the mentality that racism and it's consequences stopped in 1963, and an unwillingness to reassess that idea.

Maybe this’ll shed a little light on the stats you’ve provided...

 

[panamaican]

Agree to disagree
A minority absolutely could not be elected in a Systemic Racist country to the highest position, none the less reelected

He wouldnt even have gotten into Harvard Law to become a Senator in the first place

Definately wouldnt have earned donor backing from Wall St, and neoliberal corporate machine

We can't agree to disagree because you're not using the proper definition of "systemic racism". You're just ignoring the definition itself.

There are many systems in the nation, not just 1. Harvard law school is a "system" but so is Yale Law. So if Tufts Medical school. They are all separate systems. The Police are a "system". So is the judiciary. So is the District Attorney's office. They are all separate systems. Any of them can be racist or none of them or all of them. But they all have to be evaluated separately. The DA's office could be systemically racist while the police and judiciary are not. Yale Law could be systemically racist while Yale Medical School is not.

Rather than belabor the point, I'll ask - what part of the definition of "systemic racism" are you disagreeing with?

 

[panamaican]

@panamaican what is your take on the early 90s prison reform (or did it start under Reagan?) that saw tons of black men ending up in prison?

The prison system has never been fair to black America. Picking out one era or another is silly, imo, because there's very few points in the history where you can say "That was fairly done."

Is there something particular to the 90s that is important to you relative to the 60s or the 70s or the 80s? Or even the 40s and 50s?

It's like having a school full of bad teachers and then saying "What do you think about the bad teacher in 5th grade?" I think the teacher in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th were all bad. So unless there's something specific to the 5th grade teacher, focusing on that teacher misses the problem with the entire school itself.

 

[vengeful]

The prison system has never been fair to black America. Picking out one era or another is silly, imo, because there's very few points in the history where you can say "That was fairly done."

Is there something particular to the 90s that is important to you relative to the 60s or the 70s or the 80s? Or even the 40s and 50s?

It's like having a school full of bad teachers and then saying "What do you think about the bad teacher in 5th grade?" I think the teacher in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th were all bad. So unless there's something specific to the 5th grade teacher, focusing on that teacher misses the problem with the entire school itself.

I'd bet that he's talking about the 94 Crime Bill that Biden helped write.....it's a popular topic for some reason now.

 

[panamaican]

By your standards, much of the MSM purveys systemic racism.


As a previous poster stated, it’s a vague term used by certain people with certain agendas as a way to encompass varying degrees of actions, in an effort to clump everyone together, with the ultimate goal of perpetuating their vague beliefs on weaker-minded people.

No, a single infographic speaking about a single President isn't systemic racism. You'd have to point to an entrenched system that targets a race of people, regardless of the individuals operating the system and regardless of an individual target.

So, if you're going to call the MSM systemically racist, you'd have to include the entire MSM apparatus targeting an entire race (which I'm assuming for you is white people). But that doesn't make sense, MSNBC doesn't seem to target white people, it might target conservatives but that's not a race. Fox News certainly doesn't target white people so they aren't systemically racist. CNN? I've not seen anything that says that CNN's internal apparatus targets white people. They frequently hold up and support white people in many areas of life.

Perhaps you're confusing individuals, like Trump, with the entire race of white people. And then confusing "Republicans" and "conservatives" with "white". Because Trump is certainly targeted and Republicans and their policies are as well. But that isn't a race of people.

 

[shockaholic12]

From the article you linked "Officers may be netting more successful stops of white New Yorkers because they are only likely to stop a white person when they actually suspect that person of committing a crime." (As it should be for everyone)

Again, if blacks commit the majority of crime in a particular area, why would they stop and frisk more whites than blacks?

I'm not even saying that this isn't racist, because the article actually gives two examples of police overreach, however what were the demographics of those neighborhoods that the stop and frisk policies were conducted in? Once again, if blacks are committing more crime in those areas than whites, how does it help them to stop and frisk whites disproportionally to blacks?

And just for the record, I'm against any stop and frisk policies, as I am against the war on drugs, as I am against gun control, and basically any laws that make it police business to stick their nose in our citizens business.

But the article doesn't prove that whites were committing disproportionally more crime than blacks as that poster insinuated and you claimed. Nor does is prove systematic racism as that's one place. It just proves that NYPD probably has some racist tendencies.

I'm not sure why people are so afraid of looking at the truth, but the facts are the facts and the facts are minorities commit a disproportionate amount of crime in the United States. It stands to reason that the more crime someone commits the more likely they are to have police interaction.

And again, I don't agree with most of the laws that allow those interactions to take place. But I also don't think there is a scheme in place (purposely or otherwise) to hold any particular group of people down.

You literally state an example of systemic racism in the first line of this response. It implies the police force on a system wide basis only stopped white people when they think they committed a crime, but people of other races were not policed in that same manner and stopped even without that level of suspicion, skewing the crime stats. Then you attempt to use those same stats you claim are skewed try to use to justify policing minorities harder. How can't you see that doesn't make any sense?

The stops were showing whites were carrying at a significant rate, as you admit. So by your logic, since they were the ones committing disproportionally more crime in this instance they should have been the demographic policed harder and searched more. But they weren't, the opposite happened. Because racism in the system.

 

[panamaican]

Yes and it's more of a big deal than you're making it out to be. The Irish in Ireland had the same problem and they finally stopped allowing their economy to finally grow
Especially since the closing of ranks has done a huge amount of harm the black community since the late 70s. It was a beneficial aspect that is now a burden

I would completely disagree. Closing ranks has done them more good than harm because it is selectively applied. Closing economic ranks is good for them. If no one is going to invest in your community then close ranks and do it yourself. If people are going to criminalize you excessively for the same things they ignore in others then closing your ranks allows you greater freedom to self-police. If they're not going to treat you fairly in the job market then closing ranks provides more opportunity internally. When they dump drugs into your communities and then up the drug related penalties...that's a pretty good sign that openness isn't helping you.

People can say the black community shouldn't close ranks...fine. Then when will those people open their ranks to include those black people in them as equals? Will they stop overly policing them? Throwing out their resumes for jobs? Assuming they're less intelligent? Mocking and mistreating them? When they get treated with openness then people can expect them to be equally open.

As for the Irish, they didn't open their ranks until they had internally reached a certain economic point. The same with the Italians, the Chinese, etc. Black America should do the same, protect their community from external abuse and economic exploitation and when other people show a willingness to treat them with respect then you can let them in.

 

[panamaican]

I'd bet that he's talking about the 94 Crime Bill that Biden helped write.....it's a popular topic for some reason now.

I know. But that's the trap and I don't have time for silly games. If someone wants to talk about prison bills then lets talk about the entire system. Or they can just man up and say "Well, BIden blah blah blah." But if they lack the balls to openly say the shit they want to say then I'm going to talk about the entire system and have them explain to me why only one small moment matters to the exclusion of everything else.

 

[MMAGA]

Perhaps you're confusing individuals, like Trump, with the entire race of white people. And then confusing "Republicans" and "conservatives" with "white". Because Trump is certainly targeted and Republicans and their policies are as well. But that isn't a race of people.

If you don't believe Trump, his administration, his followers, etc., represent the "white agenda" in many people's minds, then you're missing the forest for the trees. In many people's minds, the current administration, law enforcement, supporters of these entities, and race are all one in the same.

 

[Final Say]

but how can you loot steal
And destroy people’s lives and businesses and complain that they’re viewing you in a negative light

when you view things this way, and look at looting, stealing and vandalism as if its the issue in the current state of america, it will only continue. its a symptom of a problem, not the problem. its an effect of a cause.

 

[panamaican]

If you don't believe Trump, his administration, his followers, etc., represent the "white agenda" in many people's minds, then you're missing the forest for the trees. In many people's minds, the current administration, law enforcement, supporters of these entities, and race are all one in the same.

Which people's mind? Because he said MSM, not "many people". But once again, that's the difference between systemic racism and individual racism. A person or many persons equating those things with "white people" is individual racism, not systemic racism.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Super vague wording there, with regards to the findings. Call me crazy, but I'm skeptical of what's considered racist these days.

Well I put a link to the report so you can read it yourself. But something tells me you've already made up your mind so not sure if even that would help.

 

[ArmenianAssasin]

when you view things this way, and look at looting, stealing and vandalism as if its the issue in the current state of america, it will only continue. its a symptom of a problem, not the problem. its an effect of a cause.

the exact same argument can be applied to why cops discriminate against African Americans with tons of real statistics to support it