CRT - Page 35 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By wat0n
#15178212
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

Yes.


OK. It signals lack of rigor and also a lack commitment to using the scientific method. It is also essentialist, insofar it claims some people's subjectivity is more accurate than others for a given dimension due to the identity class they belong to.
By Pants-of-dog
#15178215
wat0n wrote:OK. It signals lack of rigor and also a lack commitment to using the scientific method.


Only if you assume that using one epistemic method precludes the use of others.

This is an illogical and unrealistic assumption.

Are you assuming that CRT scholars are only capable of using one epistemic system at a time?

It is also essentialist, insofar it claims some people's subjectivity is more accurate than others for a given dimension due to the identity class they belong to.


So you disagree that black people have a better understanding of anti-blackness in general.

How does that make sense?

This is contradicted by the simple fact that black people experience anti-blackness with far more regularity than people who are not black, and by the fact that more experience generally means more knowledge.
By wat0n
#15178217
Pants-of-dog wrote:Only if you assume that using one epistemic method precludes the use of others.

This is an illogical and unrealistic assumption.

Are you assuming that CRT scholars are only capable of using one epistemic system at a time?


I think we already went through this: What happens when the scientific method conflicts with the narrative-based epistemic system they support?

Pants-of-dog wrote:So you disagree that black people have a better understanding of anti-blackness in general.

How does that make sense?

This is contradicted by the simple fact that black people experience anti-blackness with far more regularity than people who are not black, and by the fact that more experience generally means more knowledge.


I see. So for instance, if a White person claims to be discriminated against by the government (i.e. deals with "anti-whiteness"), like Mr Hershman from many pages ago, does he have a better understanding of this issue than nonwhite CRT advocates who claim Whites are not discriminated against by the same government and (if anything) claim the government discriminates favoring Whites?
By Pants-of-dog
#15178220
wat0n wrote:I think we already went through this: What happens when the scientific method conflicts with the narrative-based epistemic system they support?


Please answer the question:

Are you assuming that CRT scholars are only capable of using one epistemic system at a time?

If the answer is yes, then you are making an unrealistic and illogical assumption.

If the answer is no, then how does this criticism of CRT’s use of standpoint epistemology work?

I see. So for instance, if a White person claims to be discriminated against by the government (i.e. deals with "anti-whiteness"), like Mr Hershman from many pages ago, does he have a better understanding of this issue than nonwhite CRT advocates who claim Whites are not discriminated against by the same government and (if anything) claim the government discriminates favoring Whites?


Yes, white people would have a better understanding of anti-whiteness if sucha. thing existed.

In fact, the white people who do feel they are victimised have a much clearer understanding of how they are supposedly victimised than those of us who have lived different experiences.

And you seem to agree that people who have experienced something know more about that thing than people who have not experienced it.
By wat0n
#15178222
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please answer the question:

Are you assuming that CRT scholars are only capable of using one epistemic system at a time?

If the answer is yes, then you are making an unrealistic and illogical assumption.

If the answer is no, then how does this criticism of CRT’s use of standpoint epistemology work?


I'm still waiting for you to respond which approach takes precedence when they reach differing conclusions according to CRT advocates, narratives or the scientific method?

Just because it's not illogical to be able to reach the same conclusion using different epistemic approaches it does not mean there is no preference for ones over the others. The way to infer so is to decide which is relied on when they do not reach the same conclusions, of course.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, white people would have a better understanding of anti-whiteness if sucha. thing existed.

In fact, the white people who do feel they are victimised have a much clearer understanding of how they are supposedly victimised than those of us who have lived different experiences.

And you seem to agree that people who have experienced something know more about that thing than people who have not experienced it.


So which claim is true here, does the US government discriminate against Whites or it discriminates in favor of Whites?
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15178224
wat0n wrote:Where did you get though that systemic racism is defined in that way? Would you cite a definition?

Also, why should I accept their vocabulary at all?


"critical race theory (CRT), intellectual movement and loosely organized framework of legal analysis based on the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is used to oppress and exploit people of colour. Critical race theorists hold that the law and legal institutions in the United States are inherently racist insofar as they function to create and maintain social, economic, and political inequalities between whites and nonwhites, especially African Americans."

It's the premise, you don't get to redefine it. But the good news is that you don't have to accept it either. But if you are going to debate the premise then... do so.

wat0n wrote:Nope, because I think you are selectively responding to my statement. Address all of it, since it forms a cohesive unit."


Oh well... and no.

wat0n wrote:I am holding myself to that standard, which is why I stated I have a belief that discrimination may not be not behind those differences in outcomes (for reasons I already stated) as opposed to claiming it's a fact that discrimination does not cause those differences.


Ambiguity is not an argument. This is just you believing that discrimination may or may not be behind differences in outcome. This is obviously not rigorous... it's wishy washy, and it once again concedes that the premise may be true without proving it is not.

wat0n wrote:That's a statement about what race is (as a concept), it does not say anything about differences in outcomes by that socially constructed category (i.e. "race") being defined as systemic racism. In fact, that is most certainly not the definition of systemic racism that I've been used elsewhere either.


I've included a more complete definition of CRT above. Check it out. Doesn't matter what you've seen elsewhere. We aren't debating that.

wat0n wrote:So you are basically saying your premise is true because it is true. Am I correct here?


Actually I said that CRT said it is true and you are supposed to be trying to prove it isn't.

wat0n wrote:No, you defined such results as being the result of discrimination but that's a circular reasoning and, again, it leads to you even claim random variation can be a form of discrimination.


Can you quote me directly claiming that random variation is a form of discrimination? Don't see that I'm responsible for your misunderstandings.

wat0n wrote:Care to explain why my statement would be wrong? What is it that I'm not understanding? :|


Not my job to teach you reading comprehension. Puzzle it out. Given your intelligence, I seriously doubt you are confused In court, lawyers do this kind of thing to throw up a smokescreen in an attempt to obscure what their opponent is saying and to force them to spend time responding to BS. If you can't understand what I'm saying... Oh well. Go find someone you can understand to debate with.

wat0n wrote:Fair, here's an example:

You can read about the case here, it includes some of the reasons for the original ruling.


So, where does it say that it was CRT advocates that wrote the law that SCOTUS struck down?

wat0n wrote: You can read the paper then :|


Some reason you can't quote the pertinent section? I'm not going to bulldoze through all that when you can just quote the relevant parts... assuming they exist.

wat0n wrote:That's a very roundabout way to say it, even worse, it's not clear that they getting into prison at different rates as a result from discrimination.


Sorry you don't like the way I said it. Do you have some alternate explanation why black people are locked up at almost four times the rate of their incidence in the population?

wat0n wrote:What didn't I understand about your original claim?


How would I know? You tell me. Seems pretty clear to me.

wat0n wrote:That would only be a result of your indifference, though.


That's what I said. :D Still blows the hell out of your argument the way you phrased it.

wat0n wrote:Did you even understand what I said?


Yup, you said Plessy kick started segregation in the USA... you were wrong. At this point I can't decide if you just can't figure out when you are wrong, or have some problem directly admitting it.

wat0n wrote:Anyway: Before the Civil War, segregation was indeed a thing as well, including the North where there were jurisdictions that mandated segregating free whites and free blacks. But I don't think it had ever been tested in court, as it was clearly Constitutional given the lack of the Equal Protection concepts in the Constitution. Plessy is different since it also enshrined it as being Constitutional despite the 14th Amendment and the civil rights gains after the Civil War.


Now if you had said that... you would have been correct. But you didn't... Isn't precision important to you?

wat0n wrote:Sure, it can be embedded into the law for a short time and then disappear. Indeed, it could become embedded in the law again in the future.


Well then, I don't see how this helps your assertion that a society either has racism embedded in it or not. Seems like you are saying now... sometimes it might and sometime it might not. Can you clear up which you mean?

wat0n wrote:That does not mean it is possible to find some sort of Shroedinger's systemic racism under this definition :|


Don't know what to tell you, you are the one that said "either racism is embedded in the society or it is not". Seemed a rather rash statement on your part. Which is why I pointed it out.

wat0n wrote:Yes, I'm a stat guy. I also understand confidence intervals may not be reliable in practice, if your statistical model is inadequate.


Your statement that "my model" is inadequate is not sufficient. In fact I don't even think I personally am using anything that can be formally characterized as a model. All I'm saying is that the stats I cited indicate that racial groups are treated differently in the USA and that CRT says that such things are exploitative and oppressive due to social constructs not biology. You are supposed to be proving they aren't... rigorously.

You haven't even tried to do so.

wat0n wrote:But you are missing the point here: Even if you find a difference for a group, it can be caused by random variation too. For example, if a farming community suffers from a drought (a weather phenomenon that may in fact be the result of a stochastic phenomenon) and loses income as a result, you would not take average income by community, find that this and other communities affected by the draught earn less and then claim they suffer from discrimination "by definition". If it happened that the communities affected are largely from a single racial group, and they are large enough to affect the nationwide estimate of income for that group, you could then find that this community has statistically lower income than others and (again) it would be not be obvious this is a result of discrimination let alone proper to simply presume all of these differences arise due to discrimination. Sure, you may be rigorously wrong (you made a claim that is logically sound but factually false), but wrong nonetheless.


Except you haven't actually proven this to be the case of any of the statistics I cited. In fact all you've been doing is saying could be. Have you ever taken a debate course? It doesn't seem that you are aware that you are supposed to be proving your assertions, not make unsupported statements and guesses.

wat0n wrote:Even a blind person should be able to understand the physical phenomenon of the color blue. What he may not understand is the sensorial aspects of that and any other color, if he's blind since birth.


You are just making the same mistake again. "Blue" is NOT a physical phenomenon, it's an epiphenomenon that depends on a person experiencing sight. I specifically said "blue" not a physical property with a wave length of such and such. This is you not being able to either understand you were wrong, or refusing to admit it. Either way you are confusing the primary phenomenon with the secondary one.

"An epiphenomenon is a secondary phenomenon that occurs alongside or in parallel to a primary phenomenon"

Do you understand?
By late
#15178229
PataOneil wrote:
Just out of curiosity, what would you consider proof that a society has racism embedded in it?



You do realise that there is a group of academic disciplines that has studied our racism in depth?
(They include pesky things like facts, too)
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15178230
Sure, but I was asking what wat0n would consider proof, not if he'd formally studied racism. I'm still new, maybe I messed up the form somehow?

I see racism a lot, in a lot of difference forms. Hard for me to understand how someone could not recognize how pervasive it is in the USA.
By wat0n
#15178235
PataOneil wrote:"critical race theory (CRT), intellectual movement and loosely organized framework of legal analysis based on the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is used to oppress and exploit people of colour. Critical race theorists hold that the law and legal institutions in the United States are inherently racist insofar as they function to create and maintain social, economic, and political inequalities between whites and nonwhites, especially African Americans."

It's the premise, you don't get to redefine it. But the good news is that you don't have to accept it either. But if you are going to debate the premise then... do so.


No, firstly that's what CRT claims and is thus subject to scrutiny. But also, that is most certainly not the definition of "systemic racism".

PataOneil wrote:Ambiguity is not an argument. This is just you believing that discrimination may or may not be behind differences in outcome. This is obviously not rigorous... it's wishy washy, and it once again concedes that the premise may be true without proving it is not.


On the contrary, it's rigorous to acknowledge your belief is not a fact. It is also not ambiguous to say so, the word you may be looking for is nuanced.

PataOneil wrote:I've included a more complete definition of CRT above. Check it out. Doesn't matter what you've seen elsewhere. We aren't debating that.


This is a red herring and does not address what I said.

PataOneil wrote:Actually I said that CRT said it is true and you are supposed to be trying to prove it isn't.


What I'm saying is that 1) it's not rigorous, 2) it has not proven its claims properly. It's possible for CRT to be right but not being able to prove so in a rigorous manner.

PataOneil wrote:Can you quote me directly claiming that random variation is a form of discrimination? Don't see that I'm responsible for your misunderstandings.


I didn't say you claimed so, I said that under your premises you could conclude that.

PataOneil wrote:Not my job to teach you reading comprehension. Puzzle it out. Given your intelligence, I seriously doubt you are confused In court, lawyers do this kind of thing to throw up a smokescreen in an attempt to obscure what their opponent is saying and to force them to spend time responding to BS. If you can't understand what I'm saying... Oh well. Go find someone you can understand to debate with.


I take it you have not supported that claim.

PataOneil wrote:So, where does it say that it was CRT advocates that wrote the law that SCOTUS struck down?


How about the part that the SCOTUS is ignoring the racial history involved here?

PataOneil wrote:Some reason you can't quote the pertinent section? I'm not going to bulldoze through all that when you can just quote the relevant parts... assuming they exist.


I would say you may as well start by reading the abstract

PataOneil wrote:Sorry you don't like the way I said it. Do you have some alternate explanation why black people are locked up at almost four times the rate of their incidence in the population?


There are differences in (for starters) criminal history, the actual crimes they are being tried for, etc. There is a long literature that mentions these as options and none is mutually exclusive with discrimination, by the way. It's entirely cogent to say "there are racial differences in behavior yet the system is still racially discriminatory", but normally the explanation by CRT advocates is exclusively the latter. In fact, you are saying this is a premise of CRT proponents (it's not, BTW, it's a claim implied by their actual premises that societal problems are caused by systemic and cultural factors and that racism is embedded in US laws and society).

PataOneil wrote:How would I know? You tell me. Seems pretty clear to me.


I don't know, since I don't understand you could explain it to me.

PataOneil wrote:That's what I said. :D Still blows the hell out of your argument the way you phrased it.


I see. Would your family, for example, sue me instead?

PataOneil wrote:Yup, you said Plessy kick started segregation in the USA... you were wrong. At this point I can't decide if you just can't figure out when you are wrong, or have some problem directly admitting it.


Fine, you are right. Then let me rephrase and add some nuance I'm surprised I need to add: It started segregation as most remember it. People have forgotten the North was segregated prior to the Civil War.

PataOneil wrote:Now if you had said that... you would have been correct. But you didn't... Isn't precision important to you?


It is indeed, so I hope you don't mind if I'm more precise :)

PataOneil wrote:Well then, I don't see how this helps your assertion that a society either has racism embedded in it or not. Seems like you are saying now... sometimes it might and sometime it might not. Can you clear up which you mean?


Do you think society could have racism embedded in itself for, say, 2 ms only? How about society cycling between having racism embedded within itself and then not having racism embedded within itself in intervals of 2 ms?

PataOneil wrote:Don't know what to tell you, you are the one that said "either racism is embedded in the society or it is not". Seemed a rather rash statement on your part. Which is why I pointed it out.


Well, that's why I'm saying it doesn't seem possible that systemic racism is like Schrodinger's cat.

PataOneil wrote:Your statement that "my model" is inadequate is not sufficient. In fact I don't even think I personally am using anything that can be formally characterized as a model.


It doesn't have to be a formal model, though. Just a short causal chain, like racial discrimination -> differences in outcome X by race. Although if I understand you correctly, you claimed CRT has the premise that racial discrimination <=> differences in outcome X by race

PataOneil wrote: All I'm saying is that the stats I cited indicate that racial groups are treated differently in the USA and that CRT says that such things are exploitative and oppressive due to social constructs not biology. You are supposed to be proving they aren't... rigorously.

You haven't even tried to do so.


No, the only thing those stats truly indicate is that there are differences in outcomes. Everything else you mentioned is possible reasons for these differences in outcomes, and it's up to you to back this explanation up.

By the way, this is something I've even read researchers who have found those differences say about what their research says (example). The fact that these differences exist is also of inherent interest, as their existence is possibly indicating a problem.

PataOneil wrote:Except you haven't actually proven this to be the case of any of the statistics I cited. In fact all you've been doing is saying could be. Have you ever taken a debate course? It doesn't seem that you are aware that you are supposed to be proving your assertions, not make unsupported statements and guesses.


My assertion is that you are jumping to conclusions here.

PataOneil wrote:You are just making the same mistake again. "Blue" is NOT a physical phenomenon, it's an epiphenomenon that depends on a person experiencing sight. I specifically said "blue" not a physical property with a wave length of such and such. This is you not being able to either understand you were wrong, or refusing to admit it. Either way you are confusing the primary phenomenon with the secondary one.

"An epiphenomenon is a secondary phenomenon that occurs alongside or in parallel to a primary phenomenon"

Do you understand?


Interesting definition of "blue" then. In reality though we understand the physics behind why a normal person will perceive something as being blue.

PataOneil wrote:Just out of curiosity, what would you consider proof that a society has racism embedded in it?


I already gave you an example of a smoking gun with regards to Jim Crow and earlier: Discrimination is made legal or even mandatory under the law, as it happened in the South at the time. You can also add that the law itself is discriminatory based on its direct effects, which it can be even if it is not done explicitly (such as the grandfather clauses back in the day, that were worded in such a way that their effects violated the 15th Amendment).

I don't think it's accurate to say there is such a smoking gun in current American laws, as discriminatory laws can be challenged in court if they violate the Constitution itself or anti-discrimination laws. Indeed, the latter is precisely what "discriminatory law" means, for legal purposes at least.
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15178241
wat0n wrote:I already gave you an example of a smoking gun with regards to Jim Crow and earlier: Discrimination is made legal or even mandatory under the law, as it happened in the South at the time. You can also add that the law itself is discriminatory based on its direct effects, which it can be even if it is not done explicitly (such as the grandfather clauses back in the day, that were worded in such a way that their effects violated the 15th Amendment).

I don't think it's accurate to say there is such a smoking gun in current American laws, as discriminatory laws can be challenged in court if they violate the Constitution itself or anti-discrimination laws. Indeed, the latter is precisely what "discriminatory law" means, for legal purposes at least.


So when you say embedded in society, you actually mean embedded in the law? Even if a lot of the people in the society are overtly racially bigoted that doesn't count as systemic racism?

Does that mean you would disagree with these definitions?

"Systemic racism includes the complex array of antiblack practices, the unjustly gained political-economic power of whites, the continuing economic and other resource inequalities along racial lines, and the white racist ideologies and attitudes created to maintain and rationalize white privilege and power. Systemic here means that the core racist realities are manifested in each of society’s major parts [...] each major part of U.S. society—the economy, politics, education, religion, the family—reflects the fundamental reality of systemic racism."

https://www.thoughtco.com/systemic-racism-3026565

"Wikipedia defines the term as “the formalization of a set of institutional, historical, cultural and interpersonal practices within a society that more often than not puts one social or ethnic group in a better position to succeed, and at the same time disadvantages other groups in a consistent and constant manner that disparities develop between the groups over a period of time.”

"systemic racism
noun [ U ]
/sɪˌstem.ɪk ˈreɪ.sɪ.zəm/ /sɪˌstem.ɪk ˈreɪ.sɪ.zəm/
policies and practices that exist throughout a whole society or organization, and that result in and support a continued unfair advantage to some people and unfair or harmful treatment of others based on race:"

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... mic-racism


Would you mind citing a definition of systemic racism that limits itself to law as you have done here?
Last edited by PataOneil on 24 Jun 2021 23:12, edited 1 time in total.
By wat0n
#15178244
PataOneil wrote:So when you say embedded in society, you actually mean embedded in the law? Even if a lot of the people in the society are overtly racially bigoted that doesn't count as systemic racism?


@Pants-of-dog and other proponents of CRT would say so, yes. Check the definition of CRT yourself: It's a systemic issue, not dependent on bigotry of any particular individual.

But to get to your question: You could infer there was a general sentiment of bigotry in the Jim Crow era as well, as often local politicians would provide explicitly racist reasons for supporting things like segregation. You could read the press, too, if you wanted. Sometimes you could infer a judge's bigotry from his legal opinions, too.

Earlier in this thread, I cited Kimberle Crenshaw to criticize the paper where she introduced intersectionality. And while I disagree with how the concept has been applied nowadays, she does include an interesting example that may illustrate the last point of the preceding paragraph:

Crenshaw wrote:50 Because of the way the legal system viewed chastity, Black women could not be victims of forcible rape. One commentator has noted that "[aiccording to governing sterotypes [sic], chastity could not be possessed by Black women. Thus, Black women's rape charges were automatically discounted, and the issue of chastity was contested only in cases where the rape complainant was a white woman." Note, 6 Harv Women's L J at 126 (cited in note 47). Black women's claims of rape were not taken seriously regardless of the offender's race. A judge in 1912 said: "This court will never take the word of a N***** against the word of a white man [concerning rape]." Id at 120. On the other hand, lynching was considered an effective remedy for a Black man's rape of a white woman. Since rape of a white woman by a Black man was "a crime more horrible than death," the only way to assuage society's rage and to make the woman whole again was to brutally murder the Black man. Id at 125.


Do you really think any judges would write something like that?
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15178247
wat0n wrote:@Pants-of-dog and other proponents of CRT would say so, yes.


Please re read my post I added several other definitions.

And I did not ask you about other members of this community. I asked you if you were restricting systemic racism to racism as exposed in law.

Please cite a definition of systemic racism that restricts itself to racism in law.
By wat0n
#15178249
PataOneil wrote:Please re read my post I added several other definitions.

And I did not ask you about other members of this community. I asked you.

Please cite a definition of systemic racism that restricts itself to racism in law.


I never claimed the definition of systemic racism restricts itself to racism in law. I said the law provides clear, unquestionable proof that racism is in fact systemic. I also provided you some examples of that.

Law isn't the only possible smoking gun either, but it's easily the most prominent type of clear, unquestionable proof (not evidence either, but proof) of systemic racism you could find. And furthermore deals with one of the key claims by CRT proponents, namely, that racism is embedded in the law.
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15178251
wat0n wrote:"I already gave you an example of a smoking gun with regards to Jim Crow and earlier: Discrimination is made legal or even mandatory under the law, as it happened in the South at the time. You can also add that the law itself is discriminatory based on its direct effects, which it can be even if it is not done explicitly (such as the grandfather clauses back in the day, that were worded in such a way that their effects violated the 15th Amendment).

I don't think it's accurate to say there is such a smoking gun in current American laws, as discriminatory laws can be challenged in court if they violate the Constitution itself or anti-discrimination laws. Indeed, the latter is precisely what "discriminatory law" means, for legal purposes at least."


So when you said the above in response to my asking you what you would consider systemic racism... you weren't giving a complete answer?

Would you mind citing a definition of systemic racism that you happen to agree with.
By wat0n
#15178253
PataOneil wrote:So when you said the above in response to my asking you what you would consider systemic racism... you weren't giving a complete answer?

Would you mind citing a definition of systemic racism that you happen to agree with.


Wiki wrote: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]


If you agree with the definition above, that systemic racism is racism that is embedded in the law or regulations of society or an organization, then I think it's reasonable to look for it in the laws and regulations of the US if you want definite, unquestionable proof of its presence.

Of course, the approach I mentioned above is not exhaustive because you can in principle have systemic racism even if it is not embedded in the law in any way. For instance, even though these are not laws, there can be tacit norms that are racist. I think that's also what CRT advocates are pointing out when they claim the US is a systemically racist society, but by their tacit nature you won't generally be able to find smoking guns in that case - it's all inherently open to question. You can, however, consult the law and see if it also includes antidiscrimination provisions to deal with racism arising from e.g. tacit norms. The US definitely does have such laws, which also tips the balance towards skepticism in my case at least, but YMMV.
User avatar
By PataOneil
#15178254
wat0n wrote:If you agree with the definition above, that systemic racism is racism that is embedded in the law or regulations of society or an organization, then I think it's reasonable to look for it at the laws and regulations of the US.

Also, that approach is not exchaustive because you can in principle have systemic racism even if it is not embedded in the law in any way. For instance, even though these are not laws, there can be tacit norms that are racist. I think that's also what CRT advocates are pointing out when they claim the US is a systemically racist society, but by their tacit nature you won't generally be able to find smoking guns in that case. Instead, however, you can consult the law and see if it also includes antidiscrimination provisions to deal with racism arising from e.g. tacit norms. The US definitely does have such laws.


You actually misquoted the definition you cited. You said "in law" That is inaccurate and misleading.

"Institutional racism, also known as systemic racism, is a form of racism that is embedded through laws and regulations within society or an organization."
By wat0n
#15178256
PataOneil wrote:You actually misquoted the definition you cited. You said "in law" That is inaccurate and misleading.

"Institutional racism, also known as systemic racism, is a form of racism that is embedded through laws and regulations within society or an organization."


How can you embed racism through law but not in law?
  • 1
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 53

@ThirdTerm I agree with you ThridTerm. If you […]

Maybe the problem is a former POTUS loudly whinin[…]

@SpecialOlympian You know what gets me SO. If […]

Is Marxism old-fashioned?

Profit is determined by the demand for investme[…]