[Pants-of-dog]

I was referring to CRT proponents, not just scholars. This includes, for example, college students, activists and posters in the only politics forum in existence. You are one and here you are, ignoring Ms Yumga's narrative. You aren't even willing to listen to her. You have also not provided any cogent explanation for this refusal to do so.

Furthermore, her claims were made in public and went viral yet I don't think many, if any, CRT proponents changed their mind after it

It is objectively true you are refusing to listen to Ms Yumga.

Since all of this is about your incorrect assumptions about me, this is not an argument.

Please let me know if you have any argument.

And by the way, Ms. Yumga is actually a well off recent immigrant.

[wat0n]

Since all of this is about your incorrect assumptions about me, this is not an argument.

Please let me know if you have any argument.

I already gave it to you: Standpoint epistemology is trash and it is proven by the fact that you and other CRT proponents apply it selectively.

And by the way, Ms. Yumga is actually a well off recent immigrant.

And Alicia Garza is a well off African American, just like the other founders of BLM are. So are e.g. Michelle and Malia Obama. What's your point?

[Pants-of-dog]

I already gave it to you: Standpoint epistemology is trash and it is proven by the fact that you and other CRT proponents apply it selectively.

I see.

Well, you are incorrect.

Your only evidence is your assumptions about my behaviour. Since I am not a CRT proponent or scholar, my behaviour is irrelevant. Also, your assumptions about me are incorrect.

And Alicia Garza is a well off African American, just like the other founders of BLM are. So are e.g. Michelle and Malia Obama. What's your point?

So recent rich immigrants may never have been personally subjected to racism in the USA, so it quite possible that Ms. Yumga’s personal experiences differ dramatically from the personal experiences of the average black person in the USA.

[wat0n]

I see.

Well, you are incorrect.

Your only evidence is your assumptions about my behaviour. Since I am not a CRT proponent or scholar, my behaviour is irrelevant. Also, your assumptions about me are incorrect.

You have yet to explain why don't you take Yumga's narrative about systemic racism against Blacks in the US seriously given she's a Black woman. Writing like this will not change this fact.

So recent rich immigrants may never have been personally subjected to racism in the USA, so it quite possible that Ms. Yumga’s personal experiences differ dramatically from the personal experiences of the average black person in the USA.

This sort of argument is even more hypocritical on your end:

1) We are discussing systemic racism, not just instances of bigotry - a distinction you have made several times in the past.

2) You have provided no evidence to show she's a recent immigrant. She's an American citizen so chances are that she's not - it takes several years to be naturalized.

3) Do rich Blacks get stopped by the police, but only when they are born in the US? Allow me to remind you of one of your earlier claims on this matter in this very thread:

A rich person has more advantages than a poor person. No one denies that. And whiteness provides more advantages than blackness. The poor white kid from rural Wyoming never fears for his life when stopped by cops while a black rich US senator would.

It would seem intersectionality doesn't count here, since under that approach being a Black female immigrant should actually make her an even easier target, or are we now going to pretend that xenophobia doesn't exist in the US? Is being an immigrant yet another category of oppression to consider and if so where's your intersectional approach here?

4) Also as I said not even one of the 3 founders of BLM (for instance) are average Black persons (they are way wealthier and way more educated, having attended top American universities), yet you have no issues in listening to them. Why?

[Pants-of-dog]

You have yet to explain why don't you take Yumga's narrative about systemic racism against Blacks in the US seriously given she's a Black woman. Writing like this will not change this fact.

Actually, I never said that I do not take her seriously. What I said, instead, is that I am not going to make your argument for you.

And since you have yet to make the argument about her words, it is impossible for me to address this argument that you never made.

Your refusal to make your argument is not an indication of what CRT scholars think or believe.

This sort of argument is even more hypocritical on your end:

1) We are discussing systemic racism, not just instances of bigotry - a distinction you have made several times in the past.

And?

2) You have provided no evidence to show she's a recent immigrant. She's an American citizen so chances are that she's not - it takes several years to be naturalized.

You have provided no evidence for anything and not even an argument.

But you do not seem to disagree that immigrants, especially well off ones, are less likely to have personal experiences with racism in their host countries due to a simple lack of time.

3) Do rich Blacks get stopped by the police, but only when they are born in the US? Allow me to remind you of one of your earlier claims on this matter in this very thread:

Let me know when you have rewritten this question in the form of a statement or rebuttal.

It would seem intersectionality doesn't count here, since under that approach being a Black female immigrant should actually make her an even easier target, or are we now going to pretend that xenophobia doesn't exist in the US? Is being an immigrant yet another category of oppression to consider and if so where's your intersectional approach here?

Let me know when you have rewritten these questions in the form of a statement or rebuttal.

4) Also as I said not even one of the 3 founders of BLM (for instance) are average Black persons (they are way wealthier and way more educated, having attended top American universities), yet you have no issues in listening to them. Why?

Let me know when you have rewritten this question in the form of a statement or rebuttal.

[wat0n]

Actually, I never said that I do not take her seriously. What I said, instead, is that I am not going to make your argument for you.

And since you have yet to make the argument about her words, it is impossible for me to address this argument that you never made.

Your refusal to make your argument is not an indication of what CRT scholars think or believe.

Just watch her video or read one of her own writings.

And?

What type of racism are you referring to here?

You have provided no evidence for anything and not even an argument.

I've provided plenty already, but you refuse to analyze it given by your refusal to watch her video and listen to a Black woman yourself.

But you do not seem to disagree that immigrants, especially well off ones, are less likely to have personal experiences with racism in their host countries due to a simple lack of time.

So now Latin American immigrants, recent and not so recent alike, also aren't expected to have to deal with racism. That runs counter yet another claim with regards to CRT, now applied to Latin Americans living in the US.

You have yet to prove that 1) Ms Yumga's a recent immigrant, 2) she's rich.

Let me know when you have rewritten this question in the form of a statement or rebuttal.

Each point has an accompanying statement and rebuttal, with a cogent question I expect you to address. This is an evident evasive tactic because you can't deal with the fact that not only you are a hypocrite when it comes to standpoint epistemology, but also to intersectionality.

Please list other aspects of CRT that you only support when it suits you. Thanks!

[late]

Just watch her video

One person.

That's it?

The amazing thing abput racism, is that once you actually look into it, is how much there is.

Exception proves the rule, and you can see the rule working in mortality rates, and lack of access of the opportunities that you need to have a decent life. You can see it in the hate crimes, in the psychotic frenzy of Republicans to deny them even more.

[Pants-of-dog]

Just watch her video or read one of her own writings.

If that is the same editorial as was written up in the WSJ, then I have already done so.

Please specify what her claim is that you are arguing. Thank you.

What type of racism are you referring to here?

I've provided plenty already, but you refuse to analyze it given by your refusal to watch her video and listen to a Black woman yourself.

Please let me know when you have a clear argument or rebuttal.

So now Latin American immigrants, recent and not so recent alike, also aren't expected to have to deal with racism. That runs counter yet another claim with regards to CRT, now applied to Latin Americans living in the US.

Strawman.

You have yet to prove that 1) Ms Yumga's a recent immigrant, 2) she's rich.

That is true.

You have yet to provide an argument based on what Ms. Yumga has said or written, or any support for said claim.

[wat0n]

One person.

That's it?

The amazing thing abput racism, is that once you actually look into it, is how much there is.

Exception proves the rule, and you can see the rule working in mortality rates, and lack of access of the opportunities that you need to have a decent life. You can see it in the hate crimes, in the psychotic frenzy of Republicans to deny them even more.

If you want to make it about numbers, let's get statistical evidence into the mix. But that means doing away with the narratives and standpoint epistemology, which is central to justifying CRT.

Also, let's not forget to note the ad populum fallacy in your post.

If that is the same editorial as was written up in the WSJ, then I have already done so.

Please specify what her claim is that you are arguing. Thank you.

She's the one arguing something, not me. I don't purport to speak for an empowered Black woman.

Will you finally explain why don't you listen to her?

Please let me know when you have a clear argument or rebuttal.

Already there, let me know when you can provide an explanation for not taking her narrative seriously.

Strawman.

You chose to pretend being an immigrant is not yet another category of oppression for CRT advocates like yourself, at least when it suits you.

That is true.

You have yet to provide an argument based on what Ms. Yumga has said or written, or any support for said claim.

I don't have to, you are the one who believes in standpoint epistemology and have yet to explain why aren't you listening to her narrative despite being a Black woman. You have also to explain why isn't intersectionality valid when it comes to her as well. Your refusal to do so shows that standpoint epistemology is not a good epistemic approach.

[Pants-of-dog]

She's the one arguing something, not me. I don't purport to speak for an empowered Black woman.

Will you finally explain why don't you listen to her?

Since I already explained that I read her editorial in the WSJ, I will ignore your question and focus on your lack of argument or claim.

Since you have no claim or argument concerning Ms. Yumga’s claims, this tangent is no longer useful.

Already there, let me know when you can provide an explanation for not taking her narrative seriously.

Since I already explained that I read her editorial in the WSJ, I will ignore this and move on.

You chose to pretend being an immigrant is not yet another category of oppression for CRT advocates like yourself, at least when it suits you.

Again, this is a strawman.

I don't have to, you are the one who believes in standpoint epistemology and have yet to explain why aren't you listening to her narrative despite being a Black woman. You have also to explain why isn't intersectionality valid when it comes to her as well. Your refusal to do so shows that standpoint epistemology is not a good epistemic approach.

Since I already explained that I read her editorial in the WSJ, I will ignore this.

At this point, this entire post seems to be based on one inaccurate belief about me, and a strawman.

At this point, it seems that neither you nor @Julian658 nor
@Gardener can find a clear and intelligent criticism about CRT. If you have, please provide a link to a post where you have.

[wat0n]

Since I already explained that I read her editorial in the WSJ, I will ignore your question and focus on your lack of argument or claim.

Since you have no claim or argument concerning Ms. Yumga’s claims, this tangent is no longer useful.

Since I already explained that I read her editorial in the WSJ, I will ignore this and move on.

Since I already explained that I read her editorial in the WSJ, I will ignore this.

At this point, this entire post seems to be based on one inaccurate belief about me, and a strawman.

At this point, it seems that neither you nor @Julian658 nor
@Gardener can find a clear and intelligent criticism about CRT. If you have, please provide a link to a post where you have.

The argument is the fact that you are not considering her narrative at all, despite her standpoint as a Black woman. Are you going to justify this already?

Again, this is a strawman.

That immigrant status is a category of oppression for CRT advocates shouldn't be controversial at all. Indeed, here's an example of that.

Will you finally explain why isn't M Yumga's condition as an immigrant not a category of oppression to consider from an intersectional perspective?

[Pants-of-dog]

The argument is the fact that you are not considering her narrative at all, despite her standpoint as a Black woman. Are you going to justify this already?

I see no need to justify an imaginary situation that is already disproven in reality.

That immigrant status is a category of oppression for CRT advocates shouldn't be controversial at all. Indeed, here's an example of that.

Will you finally explain why isn't M Yumga's condition as an immigrant not a category of oppression to consider from an intersectional perspective?

Since I have already pointed out that this is a strawman twice, I will simply point out that I have no need to justify this incorrect argument that I never claimed.

——————-

For those who care, please note that Ms. Yumga did not claim that systemic racism does not exist in the USA.

Or, she did not do so in these two editorials she has written:
https://spartalive.com/stories/i-love-a ... lent,36069
https://www.wsj.com/articles/violence-t ... 1591638447

Nor does she make the claim on the PragerU website.

[wat0n]

I see no need to justify an imaginary situation that is already disproven in reality.

In what way?

Since I have already pointed out that this is a strawman twice, I will simply point out that I have no need to justify this incorrect argument that I never claimed.

Even those claims that US immigration policy is driven by and an example of systemic racism?

For those who care, please note that Ms. Yumga did not claim that systemic racism does not exist in the USA.

Or, she did not do so in these two editorials she has written:
https://spartalive.com/stories/i-love-a ... lent,36069
https://www.wsj.com/articles/violence-t ... 1591638447

Nor does she make the claim on the PragerU website.

Hmm? Why don't we quote her?

I love America too much to stay silent
Language of Liberty
Posted Saturday, September 26, 2020 2:26 pm
Nestride Yumga
When I got out of bed the morning of May 31, 2020, after a sleepless night, I knew I had to do something. I didn’t know what or what I would say.

I saw the protests and the riots. I had heard all the accusations about racism, racial injustice, and police brutality. I was horrified by what happened to Mr. George Floyd. But I was also horrified about what was happening to my adopted country, my beloved America. And I just couldn’t take it anymore. I couldn’t keep it inside.

So I went to one of these protests, and I did the most American thing I could think of: I told the protesters exactly what I thought. I admit it - I wasn’t very diplomatic. Maybe that’s why my remarks went viral. You can find them easily on YouTube.

Many people admired me for what I said. Many hated me. I don’t care either way. I didn’t do this for me. I did it for America, the greatest country in the world.

And I know what I’m talking about.

I was born in Cameroon, a country in West Africa. My family lived day to day, simply trying to survive. When I hear people talk about corruption and civil rights abuses here in the U.S., I shake my head. They never lived in Cameroon—or anywhere within a thousand miles of Cameroon, that’s for sure.

I came to the United States for what I could never have in my native land: freedom and happiness, the opportunity to get a good education, to earn a good living, to build a good life for myself. And that’s exactly what I’ve done. That’s what America has allowed me to do. And for that, I am eternally grateful.

Since coming to the United States, I have trained in nursing and worked as a visiting nurse assistant. Recently, I received my master’s in health care administration, and I am now working as a health care executive.

My career ambition is to close the gap in health care outcomes and design new and better strategies to ensure that under-served populations get the health care services they need. I also serve as a reservist in the United States Air Force. And yes, I look forward to getting married and starting a family.

My life is grounded in a simple truth: There’s no better place to live for anyone, of any race, than America. And everybody outside of America knows it. That’s why they line up, like I did, at U.S. embassies around the world, hoping for a chance to come here to live and work. This is truly the land of opportunity.

So, don’t go around trashing it. I don’t care where you come from. Or what your complaint is. Or what your skin color is. I’m not having it.

And that brings me back to May 31st and that park in Washington D.C.

Mr. Floyd should not have died as he did. But make no mistakes: Black Lives Matter, and their allies are using George Floyd’s death to split Americans apart at the very moment we should be coming together. They are striking at the heart of this country—twisting the knife of white guilt with one hand and black resentment with the other. These protests are not about empowering black people. They are about disempowering black people. Because when the fires stop burning, all that remains is hopelessness, anger, and shame. That’s not empowerment. That’s oppression.

Look at the innocent victims—the business owners, many of them black, who have lost their life’s work to looting and arson. What are they supposed to do now? Who cleans up the graffiti and the shattered glass? Who rebuilds? Who, after seeing their dreams go up in smoke, even wants to?

Every week in Chicago, New York, Baltimore, Washington D.C., black criminals kill black men, women, and children - CHILDREN. Do you know the name of a single one of them? Why don’t their lives matter? Where are the protests for them? Why do we only get angry when a white police officer kills a black man, while dozens of our brothers and sisters are mowed down every weekend in our neighborhoods?

Black Lives Matter and its supporters, with their bottomless obsession with racism, pretend to be leading us to a better future. But, in fact, they are sending us into a spiral of self-destruction.

It was an intense struggle for me to get to America. I love it too much to stand aside and watch it be torn apart. Stand with me.

I am not oppressed. I am not a victim. I am a free American.

Nestride Yumga has been an outspoken critic of the Black Lives Matter movement and has been published in The Wall Street Journal. Published with permission from Prager University.

The Language of Liberty series is an outreach project of Center for Self Governance to educate citizens in the principles of liberty. The views expressed by authors are their own and may not reflect the views of CSG.

She says quite explicitly that she's not oppressed or a victim. Presumably, people who suffer from systemic racism are both oppressed and victimized by the system. Indeed, systemic racism is itself a system of oppression. Am I correct here?

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

Thank you for providing evidence that your claim (i.e. that systemic racism does not exist in the USA)is incorrect.

Her only discussion of her personal experiences is the short phrase “I am not oppressed”. This is so vague as to be meaningless. However, we can see that she is describing her personal experience. And since we know that it is possible that she has had different experiences than most black people born in the USA, it is possible for her vague statement to be correct in some way and for systemic racism to be a significant factor for almost all BIPOC people in the USA.

[wat0n]

@wat0n

Thank you for providing evidence that your claim (i.e. that systemic racism does not exist in the USA)is incorrect.

Again, my claim is that the standpoint epistemology approach you support is quite useless. I've said quite explicitly this type of radical subjectivism is one thing (among others) I'm criticizing about CRT. Also I can't see how you can conclude that from her narrative.

Her only discussion of her personal experiences is the short phrase “I am not oppressed”. This is so vague as to be meaningless. However, we can see that she is describing her personal experience. And since we know that it is possible that she has had different experiences than most black people born in the USA, it is possible for her vague statement to be correct in some way and for systemic racism to be a significant factor for almost all BIPOC people in the USA.

"Almost all"? And I thought you couldn't run away from systemic racism, since it encompasses everything.

Also, what you claim is vague is something that could be said about pretty much any narrative. After all, how can some guy who was stopped by cops conclude that it's because of a system rather than simple bigotry by the cops involved?

The unreliability of standpoint epistemology is further underscored by your comment. Great.

[Pants-of-dog]

Again, my claim is that the standpoint epistemology approach you support is quite useless. I've said quite explicitly this type of radical subjectivism is one thing (among others) I'm criticizing about CRT.

Let me know when you gave evidence for this claim.

If you believe this text supports your claim, please describe how. Thank you.

Also I can't see how you can conclude that from her narrative.

Please note that she does not mention systemic racism at all.

"Almost all"? And I thought you couldn't run away from systemic racism, since it encompasses everything.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism

Institutional racism, also known as systemic racism, is a form of racism that is embedded through laws and regulations within society or an organization. It can lead to such issues as discrimination in criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power, and education, among other issues. Institutional racism has harmful effects on people, especially on students in school where it is prominent.[1]

The term institutional racism was first coined in 1967 by Stokely Carmichael and Charles V. Hamilton in Black Power: The Politics of Liberation.[2] Carmichael and Hamilton wrote in 1967 that while individual racism is often identifiable because of its overt nature, institutional racism is less perceptible because of its "less overt, far more subtle" nature. Institutional racism "originates in the operation of established and respected forces in the society, and thus receives far less public condemnation than [individual racism]".[3]

Institutional racism was defined by Sir William Macpherson in the UK's Lawrence report (1999) as: "The collective failure of an organization to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour that amount to discrimination through prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness, and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people."[4][5]

Please note that this definition does not say systemic racism is 100% all encompassing.

Also, what you claim is vague is something that could be said about pretty much any narrative.

No. Narratives have different levels of specificity. Some narratives are detailed and clear while others are not. So, it is possible to correctly say that a particular narrative is vague while being unable to say the same thing about other narratives.

The unreliability of standpoint epistemology is further underscored by your comment. Great.

How so?

[wat0n]

Let me know when you gave evidence for this claim.

If you believe this text supports your claim, please describe how. Thank you.

Your summary dismissal of her narrative does: You are not applying standpoint epistemology when it comes to her.

Please note that she does not mention systemic racism at all.

She does when she says she's free and not being oppressed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism

Institutional racism, also known as systemic racism, is a form of racism that is embedded through laws and regulations within society or an organization. It can lead to such issues as discrimination in criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power, and education, among other issues. Institutional racism has harmful effects on people, especially on students in school where it is prominent.[1]

The term institutional racism was first coined in 1967 by Stokely Carmichael and Charles V. Hamilton in Black Power: The Politics of Liberation.[2] Carmichael and Hamilton wrote in 1967 that while individual racism is often identifiable because of its overt nature, institutional racism is less perceptible because of its "less overt, far more subtle" nature. Institutional racism "originates in the operation of established and respected forces in the society, and thus receives far less public condemnation than [individual racism]".[3]

Institutional racism was defined by Sir William Macpherson in the UK's Lawrence report (1999) as: "The collective failure of an organization to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour that amount to discrimination through prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness, and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people."[4][5]

Please note that this definition does not say systemic racism is 100% all encompassing.

Everything systemic, or institutional that is. Thanks for pointing that out.

No. Narratives have different levels of specificity. Some narratives are detailed and clear while others are not. So, it is possible to correctly say that a particular narrative is vague while being unable to say the same thing about other narratives.

And yet you can say that a narrative is as unspecific as I want when it comes to argue for CRT. Because, again, you don't apply standpoint epistemology as you are now making demands of how Black women are supposed to make their voices heard too as a precondition to consider their narratives.

How so?

You are not considering the fact that, as a Black woman, she knows more about this topic than you so under standpoint epistemology and you are now making demands that she should be "more specific" as if believers in standpoint epistemology advocates telling Black women how to express themselves.

You either go all the way with standpoint epistemology or you don't at all.

[Pants-of-dog]

Your summary dismissal of her narrative does: You are not applying standpoint epistemology when it comes to her.

You seem to be making two separate claims here:

1. That I summarily dismissed the three editorials I have read. This is not the case. I carefully read the one text you cited, focused on the entire part where she describes her experiences in the USA, and then analysed that part.

So, this claim is objectively incorrect since there was no summary dismissal of her experiences by me.

2. That my dismissal is somehow an inconsistent use of standpoint epistemic. This incorrectly assumes that I have been using standpoint epistemic, which is not the case. I do not have enough experience in using it to be using it in this thread.

Since neither of these two claims are correct, I will move on....

She does when she says she's free and not being oppressed.

This is so vague as to be meaningless. However, we can see that she is describing her personal experience. And since we know that it is possible that she has had different experiences than most black people born in the USA, it is possible for her vague statement to be correct in some way and for systemic racism to be a significant factor for almost all BIPOC people in the USA.

Everything systemic, or institutional that is. Thanks for pointing that out.

Please write in complete sentences. Thank you.

And yet you can say that a narrative is as unspecific as I want when it comes to argue for CRT. Because, again, you don't apply standpoint epistemology as you are now making demands of how Black women are supposed to make their voices heard too as a precondition to consider their narratives.

This seems all about me. I will therefore ignore it.

You do not seem to disagree that narratives can have different levels of specificity.

You are not considering the fact that, as a Black woman, she knows more about this topic than you so under standpoint epistemology and you are now making demands that she should be "more specific" as if believers in standpoint epistemology advocates telling Black women how to express themselves.

You either go all the way with standpoint epistemology or you don't at all.

She does not need to be more specific if she does not want to be. I have no demands from her.

Since that now absolves me from whatever personal attack you are making here, this tangent is also dealt with.

[wat0n]

You seem to be making two separate claims here:

1. That I summarily dismissed the three editorials I have read. This is not the case. I carefully read the one text you cited, focused on the entire part where she describes her experiences in the USA, and then analysed that part.

So, this claim is objectively incorrect since there was no summary dismissal of her experiences by me.

You don't need to refuse to read a narrative to dismiss it. For instance, someone may want to claim the Irish slaves were the first ones brought by the British in America, I could read and analyze the claim and dismiss it summarily for e.g. providing no primary sources that confirm this idea. Note that this is clearly not based on standpoint theory as this is independent of the identity categories the person making the claim belongs to.

2. That my dismissal is somehow an inconsistent use of standpoint epistemic. This incorrectly assumes that I have been using standpoint epistemic, which is not the case. I do not have enough experience in using it to be using it in this thread.

Since neither of these two claims are correct, I will move on....

Since when are you supposed to be part of the allegedly oppressed group to use standpoint epistemology? It consists on listening to granting that person an epistemic privilege, that is, taking their narrative as legitimate evidence because of the identity category the person belongs to.

This is so vague as to be meaningless. However, we can see that she is describing her personal experience. And since we know that it is possible that she has had different experiences than most black people born in the USA, it is possible for her vague statement to be correct in some way and for systemic racism to be a significant factor for almost all BIPOC people in the USA.

Then, why would you say she's wrong and whatever other BIPOC who agrees with your preconceived claim is right? The honest use of standpoint epistemology would be that it means the question has no clear answer because anything else would amount to a denial of their narrative. But then it means it's a pretty bad epistemic approach to rely on, because you are quite evidently leaving other sources of information unused.

This seems all about me. I will therefore ignore it.

You do not seem to disagree that narratives can have different levels of specificity.

Yet this is not something that would matter under standpoint epistemology. Again, it's an essentialist and subjectivist approach - that's what actually matters.

She does not need to be more specific if she does not want to be. I have no demands from her.

Since that now absolves me from whatever personal attack you are making here, this tangent is also dealt with.

If she doesn't have to reach a minimum level of specificity then why don't you take her narrative seriously by incorporating it into your analysis of whether there is systemic racism against Blacks in the US? This is precisely the question you have refused to properly address. Instead, you have tried to point out she's not the right Black woman to listen to for reasons you have been unable substantiate and which in any event do not apply to others in a comparable position (being a recent immigrant, being rich, none of which you have been able to properly back up).

[Julian658]

Since all of this is about your incorrect assumptions about me, this is not an argument.

Please let me know if you have any argument.

And by the way, Ms. Yumga is actually a well off recent immigrant.

POD

Why do so many immigrants from Africa do so well in the most racist nation on Earth?