We need to have an honest discussion about race in America

[Kooky]

No I don’t. I assume if systemic racism is people employed within a system acting racist, then logic will tell you not everybody within the same system will be racist towards the same race.

I find logic, especially when it is the kind of "logic" primarily borne out of detached, abstract thinking mostly unhelpful when trying to understand bigotry because real, observable bigotry tends to be based primarily on learned habits and emotion, not rigorous or even coherent reasoning.

That’s nice! Now care to answer my question?

I disagree with the premise that your question is based on.
I think I have exhaustively elaborated as to why.

We don’t live in a society with on concept of a white or black race. Care to answer my question?

I have no idea why you think that is a refutation of my argument.
I have answered your question. Feel free to ask more specific questions if I haven't been clear, or if you want me to further elaborate on the topic.

Thousands of years ago people lived around their own race because people of other races lived in an area of the world they didn’t have a way of getting to; so racism was not an issue.

You are speaking from ignorance. We know for a fact that dark skinned people lived in the ancient Mediterranean, and that Ethiopia and East Africa have been in contact with India and the Middle East since at least the Hellenistic era. We have Egyptian temple murals from the Bronze Age depicting dark skinned and light skinned people next to one another.

Now care to answer the question?

This conversation is getting increasingly antagonistic.
If you have no interest in making this an equitable exchange of ideas, then I suggest we simply move on.

 

[Curious George]

In order for the system to be racist, the laws of the system have to be written in such a way that following said laws as intended would require you to discriminate against those of a specific race

I think you have produced a non-sequitur here.

Laws are not just what is written but also how it is (and whether it is enforced). For instance are you familiar with the "blue wall of silence?"

Let us sidestep race for a moment and instead look at pedophilia in the church for an analogy.

Nowhere in church doctrine is the sexual abuse of children supported, condoned, or encouraged. Yet, when individuals were perpetrating these acts, higher powers within the church acted to ignore and conceal these acts in an effort to protect the church. Was this problem systemic?

 

[Kfox]

I think you have produced a non-sequitur here.

Laws are not just what is written but also how it is (and whether it is enforced). For instance are you familiar with the "blue wall of silence?"

Let us sidestep race for a moment and instead look at pedophilia in the church for an analogy.

Nowhere in church doctrine is the sexual abuse of children supported, condoned, or encouraged. Yet, when individuals were perpetrating these acts, higher powers within the church acted to ignore and conceal these acts in an effort to protect the church. Was this problem systemic?

No it was not. That was an example of evil men going against the system to do as they pleased. If me and my friends go around robbing banks in violation of the laws of the land, does our bank robberies become a systemic problem?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Can't say I agree with you at all there. It's not well written from the perspective of academics either, and certainly not for students (many of whom are studying in a 2nd/3rd language).

Writing should never get in the way of the topic, and 90% of academic articles, the writing makes the topic harder rather than easier to understand accounting for the subject complexity.

The idea that these ideas are too complex or profound to be written clearly is nonsense. Poor style largely results from pretentious signalling and aping the style of other academics engaging in pretentious signaling (a habit picked up by students who think they 'must' write like academics do).

4 of Orwell's rules for writing - academic rules for writing

Never use a long word where a short one will do. - always use the most abstruse expression possible to show off your Brobdingnagian vocabulary

If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. - if possible to add a word, add one that is positively Daedalian in its abstruseness

Never use the passive where you can use the active. - The passive voice should be frequently utilised by you for the purpose of enhancing gravitas

Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. - Haha, now you are being silly. How else can we signal our erudition without including excessive and wholly unnecessary jargon and foreign terminology? Moreover, whenever possible while making a key point, you should throw in a lengthy foreign language quote without providing a translation because if the reader doesn't understand whatever languages you do then they don't deserve to understand your point.

Some fields such as mathematics and quantum physics inherently require a baseline of specialized terminology for communicating certain concepts precisely. Where and how does an average layperson draw the line between necessary complexity/terminology and poor writing?

 

[Kfox]

I disagree with the premise that your question is based on.
I think I have exhaustively elaborated as to why.

If you are going to define “systemic racism” as something that results from the actions of people who a part of a system, the reality is very few systems employ people who are all of the same race; most systems are racially diverse so if racist people within the system are what causes systemic racism, and there are racists of various races within the system, logic tells us the white racists will discriminate against some people, brown racists will discriminate against another set of people, and the black racists will discriminate against a third group of people. What is it about this premise that you disagree with?

 

[Curious George]

No it was not. That was an example of evil men going against the system to do as they pleased. If me and my friends go around robbing banks in violation of the laws of the land, does our bank robberies become a systemic problem?

That isn't really the same thing though. If you were a bank employee and you were stealing money from individuals in the bank and the bank hierarchy was choosing to turn a blind eye snd ignoring their fiduciary duty then yes there would be an institutional problem with that bank.

 

[Kfox]

That isn't really the same thing though. If you were a bank employee and you were stealing money from individuals in the bank and the bank hierarchy was choosing to turn a blind eye snd ignoring their fiduciary duty then yes there would be an institutional problem with that bank.

I disagree! A group of people stealing money, or allowing money to be stolen from a bank does not make it a bank system problem, that is a people problem. Replace those crooked people with honest people and the problem goes away; nothing about the bank system needs to be fixed.

 

[Yazata]

Over the years, I’ve heard many people say that we need to have an honest discussion about race in America

I agree that lots of people say that. Perhaps it's true, but I think that it's debatable.

Human beings, being what they are psychologically, tend to divide into "us" and "them". They identify with "us", they feel special loyalty and kinship to "us", and at times they may feel that "them" are a threat. It's probably as old or even older than humanity, with roots among the pre-human animals that we evolved from. It's foolish to deny it, everyone does it.

Activists may imagine that they are immune to the "us"/"them" dynamic, but they are still human and their hostility and rejection of anyone that they perceive as "racist" is evidence of that "fallen" humanity. They are still dividing people up, identifying with one side of the divide and perceiving the other side as enemies.

So the problem, which has certainly existed since the advent of urbanization, is how to achieve a sense of unity in increasingly diverse societies, where people are confronted by dissimilar strangers every time they leave their homes.

I personally think that the answer is rather obvious. In order for a diverse society to achieve the desired sense of unity, there will have to be more things drawing people together than pushing them apart.

That's why "an honest discussion about race" is arguably the last thing that we need right now. Creating a situation where the first thing that we notice about a stranger is their race (or "gender", or political party or whatever), is unlikely to make us think of those different than us as being "one of us". Especially when all the highlighted divisions are occasions for anger, accusations and for moral posturing.

If our goal is really unity, then we need to be deemphasizing the differences that divide us, not highlighting and accentuating them. We need to be highlighting and accentuating the things that all of us share in common, the things that bring us together. Common interests, common goals, common ideals. Things that all of us, male, female, young, old, rich, poor, black, white... can all buy into, support and identify with.

 

[Curious George]

I disagree! A group of people stealing money, or allowing money to be stolen from a bank does not make it a bank system problem, that is a people problem. Replace those crooked people with honest people and the problem goes away; nothing about the bank system needs to be fixed.

You are using phrases such as "bank system" that makes me unsure what you are discussing. Are you talking about a particular bank or are you talking about all of the banks?

The idea that the system is only the written codes is simply not true. Unwritten rules are still very much rules. And if it is the system itself that allows for discretion or unwritten rules to exist, then the problem is systemic.

 

[Kfox]

You are using phrases such as "bank system" that makes me unsure what you are discussing. Are you talking about a particular bank or are you talking about all of the banks?

If all banks abide by the same set of rules, then all banks. If each bank operates by a different set of rules, painting all banks with the same brush would be unfair; each bank would have to be judged on an individual basis.

The idea that the system is only the written codes is simply not true. Unwritten rules are still very much rules. And if it is the system itself that allows for discretion or unwritten rules to exist, then the problem is systemic.

If unwritten rules are to be included, that makes the claim unfalsifiable; because anyone can accuse a system of being racist due to unwritten rules and there is no way to prove them wrong. Falsifiable claims should always be dismissed. Unwritten rules sounds more like a cultural issue; not a systemic one.

 

[Curious George]

If all banks abide by the same set of rules, then all banks. If each bank operates by a different set of rules, painting all banks with the same brush would be unfair; each bank would have to be judged on an individual basis.

I am referencing the bank analogy. I am not sure. You suggested that my analogy of the systemic child abuse (systemic because it extended to more than just individuals committing crimes and included the culture of the system, attempts to preserve the system, and hierarchy actively concealing the individuals crimes). You suggested this was akin to a group of people robbing banks. I tried to adjust the analogy so that it fit, but now I am not sure we are on the same page.

If unwritten rules are to be included, that makes the claim unfalsifiable; because anyone can accuse a system of being racist due to unwritten rules and there is no way to prove them wrong. Falsifiable claims should always be dismissed. Unwritten rules sounds more like a cultural issue; not a systemic one.

The culture of a system is part of the system.

I disagree that including unwritten rules makes the claim unfalsifiable. I agree it makes it much harder to prove. I am not sure it makes it harder to disprove. But the burden of such things needs to be on the one leveling the accusation. Asking that agencies make themselves transparent however, is reasonable if there is not a systemic issue.

 

[Kfox]

I am referencing the bank analogy. I am not sure. You suggested that my analogy of the systemic child abuse (systemic because it extended to more than just individuals committing crimes and included the culture of the system, attempts to preserve the system, and hierarchy actively concealing the individuals crimes). You suggested this was akin to a group of people robbing banks. I tried to adjust the analogy so that it fit, but now I am not sure we are on the same page.

We are on the same page. Let me adjust the example to fit your analogy of what you call systemic child abuse. If church system/doctrine says it is wrong to abuse children this way, yet there is a culture of going against church system/doctrine by people in power, this is not a church system/doctrine problem, it is a culture/people problem. The fact that it is cultural abuse, rather than systemic abuse does not make it any less evil; it is still abuse; all it does is take the focus away from where the problem really lies (evil people) and make it about something that changing won’t fix (church system).

The culture of a system is part of the system.

I disagree! In your analogy, if keeping the system intact but changing the culture makes the problem go away, how can you call it a systemic problem?

I disagree that including unwritten rules makes the claim unfalsifiable. I agree it makes it much harder to prove. I am not sure it makes it harder to disprove. But the burden of such things needs to be on the one leveling the accusation. Asking that agencies make themselves transparent however, is reasonable if there is not a systemic issue.

If someone falsely accuses the system of allowing for a culture that abuse children, how do you prove them wrong?

 

[Kooky]

What is it about this premise that you disagree with?

all it does is take the focus away from where the problem really lies (evil people) and make it about something that changing won’t fix (church system).

And here we arrive at the crux of the divide: The idea that people are either intrinsically good or intrinsically evil, and that their "evil" behavior is completely unrelated to the social environment they operate in, that all it takes for society to be perfect is to only have "good people" in it.

 

[Curious George]

We are on the same page. Let me adjust the example to fit your analogy of what you call systemic child abuse. If church system/doctrine says it is wrong to abuse children this way, yet there is a culture of going against church system/doctrine by people in power, this is not a church system/doctrine problem, it is a culture/people problem.

I would say that the lack of transparency, lack of accountability, use of money and power by the church to suppress the truth, lack of remedies, and the systems focus on hierarchy, favoring testimony of officials, and belief that some entities are beyond reproach amounts to systemic problems.

The fact that it is cultural abuse, rather than systemic abuse does not make it any less evil; it is still abuse; all it does is take the focus away from where the problem really lies (evil people) and make it about something that changing won’t fix (church system).

But we disagree here. I think that some systems are built in such a way that they enable abuse. That is a systemic issue.

I disagree! In your analogy, if keeping the system intact but changing the culture makes the problem go away, how can you call it a systemic problem?

That is speculative. I could just as easily ask: if the problem can be curtailed by changing the system to prevent a "cultural problem"

If someone falsely accuses the system of allowing for a culture that abuse children, how do you prove them wrong?

Well, first you listen to what evidence they have that such a thing is occurring. Investigate. And then come to a conclusion.

But if you just wanted to prove them wrong, then you can show that a) the abuse didn't occur; b) that the church did not know or reasonably could not have known, or c) the church took reasonable efforts to address the abuse and reasonable efforts to prevent future abuse.

 

[Kfox]

And here we arrive at the crux of the divide: The idea that people are either intrinsically good or intrinsically evil, and that their "evil" behavior is completely unrelated to the social environment they operate in, that all it takes for society to be perfect is to only have "good people" in it.

No; my analogy doesn’t require people to be morally perfect, just non racist. They could be selfish, mean, abusive, cruel and a host of other evils; as long as they aren’t racist, replacing the racist in power with them, will end the racism.

 

[Kooky]

No; my analogy doesn’t require people to be morally perfect, just non racist. They could be selfish, mean, abusive, cruel and a host of other evils; as long as they aren’t racist, replacing the racist in power with them, will end the racism.

My point still stands - your argument is based on the notion that racism is intrinsic to a person, and not a learned behavior tied to a specific social environment; that there are people who are intrinsically racist and people who are intrinsically non-racist; and that removing racism can be trivially achieved by simply removing known racists.

 

[Kfox]

I would say that the lack of transparency, lack of accountability, use of money and power by the church to suppress the truth, lack of remedies, and the systems focus on hierarchy, favoring testimony of officials, and belief that some entities are beyond reproach amounts to systemic problems.

Yeah; that does sound like a systemic problem; and perhaps in this case it lead to the abuse. However; had those systemic problems been fixed, that doesn’t mean such abuse still would not have taken place.

But we disagree here. I think that some systems are built in such a way that they enable abuse. That is a systemic issue.

I agree. But just because a problem exist, does not mean it is systemic.

That is speculative. I could just as easily ask: if the problem can be curtailed by changing the system to prevent a "cultural problem"

No matter the system in place, if you have bad people in positions of power, there will always be those who will figure out a way to circumvent the system and do wrong.

Well, first you listen to what evidence they have that such a thing is occurring. Investigate. And then come to a conclusion.

No; if we assume nothing occurred, we just have an accusation that it could occur; how would you prove them wrong? Again; even in the perfect system, there will always be those who will figure out a way to circumvent the system and get around it.

 

[Kfox]

My point still stands - your argument is based on the notion that racism is intrinsic to a person, and not a learned behavior tied to a specific social environment; that there are people who are intrinsically racist and people who are intrinsically non-racist;

Intrinsically racist or intrinsically non racist? Nothing I've said even suggested I believe such an absurd idea. Where are you getting this stuff?

 

[Curious George]

No; if we assume nothing occurred, we just have an accusation that it could occur; how would you prove them wrong? Again; even in the perfect system, there will always be those who will figure out a way to circumvent the system and get around it.

Well if nothing occurred it would be hard to find any evidence that something did occur. I am failing to see what you are asking.

 

[Kfox]

Well if nothing occurred it would be hard to find any evidence that something did occur.

Many point to unequal outcomes and assume racism without looking at other possible factors

I am failing to see what you are asking.

My point is, going by your standard, if someone accuses you or a system of being racist without pointing to specifics (perhaps they accuse you of unintentional bias against another race, or unequal outcomes and just assuming systemic racism) there is no way to prove them wrong; even if they are wrong.