[ckaihatsu]

Sorry, @ckaihatsu I am not asking for videos of people's opinions. I'm not wasting my time watching a whole video to make your argument for you. I am asking for actual policy/law that's racist.

You want me to *look up* the actual law of *inheritance* for you?

It's institutionally racist because of the pre-existing racial *wealth gap*.

[Godstud]

@ckaihatsu That is an example of CLASSISM. A rich black person can leave an inheritance, as well. Try again.

I already acknowledged a historical influence. This is what you are talking about, but it isn't systemic racism.

[ckaihatsu]

@ckaihatsu That is an example of CLASSISM. A rich black person can leave an inheritance, as well. Try again.

I already acknowledged a historical influence. This is what you are talking about, but it isn't systemic racism.

Fun, but just because the law doesn't *explicitly* say 'Give stuff to whites', doesn't mean it isn't racist.

You're doing the same thing wat0n has done, in terms of looking at things (like family inheritance) *myopically* -- sure, we could also say that inheritance involves *atoms* crashing together somehow, but *that's* myopic, too.

'Systemic racism' can simply mean a societal legacy of racism and material imbalance that's gone unaddressed and allowed to continue. (Why hasn't society switched entirely over to *means testing*, so as to wipe out past legacies of the racial wealth gap, *proactively* -- ?) (Ditto for allowing the racist criminal justice system to continue as-is.)


When Will My Sentence End？ Reforming the Criminal Justice System ｜ The Problem with Jon Stewart

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Prison Reform and Ending Mass Incarceration ｜ The Problem with Jon Stewart

[Pants-of-dog]

Show me the racist policies/laws/rules, please. I am interested in seeing these. @Pants-of-dog refuses to answer that question. What about you, @ckaihatsu? Can you give some examples of the "systemic" part of racism?

I have provided many examples and definitions and links about systemic racism on this forum. It does not help.

In my experience, conservatives do the following:

1, They do not know what systemic racism is, then…
2. They do not believe it is real, then…
3. They refuse to look it up, then….
4. They ignore the mountains of literature on it, then….
5. They try to place the burden of proof on others, then….
6. They decide they have found a possible mistake that disproves it all, even thought it they have only glanced at a single paper looking at a slightly related topic, and (looking back at point one) did hot even know what it was when they first started talking to me.

Som if people wish to feel that systemic racism is not true, it is not my job to tutor them in a subject they do not wish to learn about.

Or you or any other conservatives could explain why black people in Japan feel that the racism there is very different, and provide an explanation other than the lack of systemic anti-blackness.

[wat0n]

'Systemic racism' can simply mean a societal legacy of racism and material imbalance that's gone unaddressed and allowed to continue. (Why hasn't society switched entirely over to *means testing*, so as to wipe out past legacies of the racial wealth gap, *proactively* -- ?) (Ditto for allowing the racist criminal justice system to continue as-is.)

Systemic racism specifically refers to racial discrimination by institutions, be it deliberate or not. It does not include legacy effects of past discrimination.

As to switching entirely to means testing, I agree to an extent. But even in that case, there are better ways than others to redistribute income.

PS: Got ninja'd

[Godstud]

@ckaihatsu Still no source aside from videos? I am not watching videos. Show me some actual policy.

@Pants-of-dog I see you label me simply because I ask some questions and do not blindly agree with you. How is this an argument?

I asked for some legitimate evidence of systemic racism in policy, procedure or law. You cannot seem to provide any, or simply do not want to provide an argument. Instead you choose to attack me with this blathering nonsense:

In my experience, conservatives do the following:

1, They do not know what systemic racism is, then…
2. They do not believe it is real, then…
3. They refuse to look it up, then….
4. They ignore the mountains of literature on it, then….
5. They try to place the burden of proof on others, then….
6. They decide they have found a possible mistake that disproves it all, even thought it they have only glanced at a single paper looking at a slightly related topic, and (looking back at point one) did hot even know what it was when they first started talking to me.

I simply asked for some evidence to support your claim of systemic racism. You, and @ckaihatsu fail to provide it. Instead you attack both me with ad hominems. Is this how you convince others to believe what you believe? Is shaming next, or is that already implicit in this last post?

Som if people wish to feel that systemic racism is not true, it is not my job to tutor them in a subject they do not wish to learn about.

No, but it is your duty in a debate, or conversation, to provide evidence if you are making a claim.

Or you or any other conservatives could explain why black people in Japan feel that the racism there is very different, and provide an explanation other than the lack of systemic anti-blackness.

Yes, I can. It's a different culture. A more polite and non-confrontational culture is going to be less obviously racist.

This article, on a similar topic, if not the same one, cites this, including things like lower crime rate.

From 2015...
What's it like to be black in Japan?
Several of the people featured in the film cited personal safety as a key consideration. Crime rates in Japan are very low compared to industrialised Western countries, and several said they felt insulated from racist violence and targeting by police.

"I feel more comfortable, I feel safer. I feel like nobody's going to shoot me because of my skin colour," says Ayana.

But impressions of Japan were not universally positive. Several of the interviewees said there was widespread ignorance about black culture, that Japanese people like to randomly touch their hair and skin, and that racist remarks were common, particularly by children.

"Catcalling gets really specific when you're black," said one interviewee. "I get called Beyonce, or Whitney Houston, who I look nothing like."

The documentary was made by Rachel, an American woman, and Jun, a Japanese man, a married couple who make videos about everyday life in Japan for their YouTube channel.

"It would be careless of me to say racism/xenophobia in Japan does not exist," one of the interviewees, Andre Cunningham, told BBC Trending via email. "You do get impolite stares, that is for sure, but most things that have happened to me were minor."

Cunningham, an English teacher from Jamaica, said he has heard Japanese people bad-mouth other nationalities but that he hasn't witnessed any specific incidents, and compared attitudes to other instances of international tensions.
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-34550264

Systemic racism specifically refers to racial discrimination by institutions, be it deliberate or not. It does not include legacy effects of past discrimination.

QFT. I am only asking for the policies in place that are perpetuating this. If there aren't any, then there's a question of whether or not it actually exists, today. I have no doubt that, in the past, it may have existed. Where it is in play is also a factor. Does Canada have systemic racism of blacks? We didn't have a history of slavery, to any great degree, as it was abolished in 1833 by the Britain.

Wouldn't black people ALSO exhibit these same feelings about safety or lack of racism, in Canada?

Don't attack me. Listen to what I am saying and respond. You can't simple label and attack people who are trying to understand or asking for clarity on a topic.

[wat0n]

I have provided many examples and definitions and links about systemic racism on this forum. It does not help.

In my experience, conservatives do the following:

1, They do not know what systemic racism is, then…
2. They do not believe it is real, then…
3. They refuse to look it up, then….
4. They ignore the mountains of literature on it, then….
5. They try to place the burden of proof on others, then….
6. They decide they have found a possible mistake that disproves it all, even thought it they have only glanced at a single paper looking at a slightly related topic, and (looking back at point one) did hot even know what it was when they first started talking to me.

Som if people wish to feel that systemic racism is not true, it is not my job to tutor them in a subject they do not wish to learn about.

Sounds like you just can't provide with what he asked.

Or you or any other conservatives could explain why black people in Japan feel that the racism there is very different, and provide an explanation other than the lack of systemic anti-blackness.

Sure.

Firstly, they may feel safe around Japanese police because crime in general, including violent crime, is very low in Japan - way lower than in pretty much any Western country. Because of that, the police is generally not involved in incidents involving deadly use of force and it's unlikely you will ever have to deal with them.

[Godstud]

@wat0n

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog

...And secondly, and this was mentioned by one of the women in the video, racism in Japan seems to be more based on whether you're Japanese or not than on your skin color. So an American may have a hard time catching that, but it is still racism.

They also seem to be mentioning things that are part of the general Japanese culture and which allow them to have a better experience there. As far as I'm aware, the Japanese are expected to be polite to everyone in general and specially if they're your customers (it's part of the collectivism of its society - politeness helps keep the peace, although being "polite" also includes accepting the prevailing social hierarchy), and keep their personal opinions to themselves (so once again your individuality is suppressed). Americans tend to be far more direct and outspoken about pretty much anything, specially if it bothers them, again very much in line with a more individualist society. That includes expressing racism openly.

I'm pretty sure that, if asked, they'd note that since they've spent long enough to have gone through the stages of cultural shock.

[ckaihatsu]

Systemic racism specifically refers to racial discrimination by institutions, be it deliberate or not. It does not include legacy effects of past discrimination.

You're trying to posit / assert a *false dichotomy*, as though 'institutions' only exist in the *present*, *abstractly*.

The reality-check here is that *since* institutions (government) *do* practice racial discrimination -- as in not using means testing and subsidies-to-individuals for overcoming past racial injustices and inequalities -- that governmental legal status quo then *becomes* 'legacy effects of past discrimination', given enough time.


[2] G.U.T.S.U.C., Simplified

Spoiler: show

---

As to switching entirely to means testing, I agree to an extent. But even in that case, there are better ways than others to redistribute income.

What's on your mind?

PS: Got ninja'd

Flattery will get you *anywhere*. (grin)

[ckaihatsu]

@ckaihatsu Still no source aside from videos? I am not watching videos. Show me some actual policy.

Still-not-watching-videos, eh -- ? (grin)

You're not impressing anyone by simply *sidestepping* / ignoring my past point, *twice* now, that the societal norm of *property inheritance* is correlated to racially-delineated economic prowess in our society.

Here's from someone else -- just dial-in *your own* oppressed-minority demographic:

The social revolution which Engels believed was about to happen would eliminate class differences, and therefore also the need for prostitution and the enslavement of women. If men needed only to be concerned with sex-love and no longer with property and inheritance, then monogamy would come naturally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origi ... d_property

So, to freaking *spell it out* for you, GS, the *policy*, of *inheritance*, is partly to blame for the overall racist political culture of the U.S., West, etc.

Think of it as a conceptual 'pillar', like something / anything destructive that's feeding into climate change / global warming -- but in *this* case it's willful blinkeredness for the sake of *retaining* our existing societal blind-spots, or privatized oligarchicalistic 'turf' for *someone*.

[ckaihatsu]

@Pants-of-dog

...And secondly, and this was mentioned by one of the women in the video, racism in Japan seems to be more based on whether you're Japanese or not than on your skin color. So an American may have a hard time catching that, but it is still racism.

It's really more 'chauvinism', as in *nationalism* -- technically speaking.

[wat0n]

You're trying to posit / assert a *false dichotomy*, as though 'institutions' only exist in the *present*, *abstractly*.

The reality-check here is that *since* institutions (government) *do* practice racial discrimination -- as in not using means testing and subsidies-to-individuals for overcoming past racial injustices and inequalities -- that governmental legal status quo then *becomes* 'legacy effects of past discrimination', given enough time.


[2] G.U.T.S.U.C., Simplified

Spoiler: show

This is a big stretch you're making here. For starters, it's not racial discrimination to use or not use means testing since means testing is meant to address the problems of poverty and low income. It would be more correct to say it's anti-poor, if you want, if the refusal was due to lack of willingness to address the problem.

The other issue is...

What's on your mind?

...That anti-poverty measures and general income redistribution can be done in a variety of ways, some of which can harm incentives to invest and accumulate capital (be it physical or human) more than others.

For example, progressive income taxes don't have the same incentive issues that progressive capital income taxes have, or that progressive consumption taxes would have if it was easily possible to have them (we may get to that point as transactions become mainly electronic).

Likewise, unconditional means tested transfers are not the same as conditioned means tested transfers. The latter can be better depending on the conditions.

[ckaihatsu]

...That anti-poverty measures and general income redistribution can be done in a variety of ways, some of which can harm incentives to invest and accumulate capital (be it physical or human) more than others.

(Note the material 'more-productivity'-vs.-'minimal-productivity' tradeoff in the diagram.)


Social Production Worldview

Spoiler: show

---

For example, progressive income taxes don't have the same incentive issues that progressive capital income taxes have, or that progressive consumption taxes would have if it was easily possible to have them (we may get to that point as transactions become mainly electronic).

Likewise, unconditional means tested transfers are not the same as conditioned means tested transfers. The latter can be better depending on the conditions.

*That's* what we have to fuss-over and hair-split-about -- ?

You're reflecting / reiterating the tradeoff between a striving 'material progress', and the status-quo 'enjoying what we have'.

[wat0n]

@ckaihatsu being a materialist yourself, why do you find it surprising?

[Pants-of-dog]

No, but it is your duty in a debate, or conversation, to provide evidence if you are making a claim.

Yes, exactly.

It is not, however, my job to support whichever claim someone else has decided that I should support Nor is it my job to disprove your belief that systemic racism does not exist.

If you want to accuse me of not supporting the argument that systemic racism exists, then yes, you are entirely correct. I am not supporting that argument.

Yes, I can. It's a different culture. A more polite and non-confrontational culture is going to be less obviously racist.

This article, on a similar topic, if not the same one, cites this, including things like lower crime rate.

From 2015...

What's it like to be black in Japan?
Several of the people featured in the film cited personal safety as a key consideration. Crime rates in Japan are very low compared to industrialised Western countries, and several said they felt insulated from racist violence and targeting by police.

"I feel more comfortable, I feel safer. I feel like nobody's going to shoot me because of my skin colour," says Ayana.

Yes, the main benefit seems to be the lack of systemic racism by institutions like the police. Specifically, violence aimed at Black people. This corroborates the claim that the racism suffered by Black people in Japan is about individual Japanese bias against foreigners rather than systemic racism against Black people.

But impressions of Japan were not universally positive. Several of the interviewees said there was widespread ignorance about black culture, that Japanese people like to randomly touch their hair and skin, and that racist remarks were common, particularly by children.

"Catcalling gets really specific when you're black," said one interviewee. "I get called Beyonce, or Whitney Houston, who I look nothing like."

The documentary was made by Rachel, an American woman, and Jun, a Japanese man, a married couple who make videos about everyday life in Japan for their YouTube channel.

"It would be careless of me to say racism/xenophobia in Japan does not exist," one of the interviewees, Andre Cunningham, told BBC Trending via email. "You do get impolite stares, that is for sure, but most things that have happened to me were minor."

Cunningham, an English teacher from Jamaica, said he has heard Japanese people bad-mouth other nationalities but that he hasn't witnessed any specific incidents, and compared attitudes to other instances of international tensions.

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-34550264

See? The main problems seem to be individual attitudes towards gaijin.

QFT. I am only asking for the policies in place that are perpetuating this. If there aren't any, then there's a question of whether or not it actually exists, today. I have no doubt that, in the past, it may have existed. Where it is in play is also a factor. Does Canada have systemic racism of blacks? We didn't have a history of slavery, to any great degree, as it was abolished in 1833 by the Britain.

Wouldn't black people ALSO exhibit these same feelings about safety or lack of racism, in Canada?

Don't attack me. Listen to what I am saying and respond. You can't simple label and attack people who are trying to understand or asking for clarity on a topic.

Again, there is nothing stopping you from Googling your own answers. Or feel free to read the analysis of systemic racism in Canadian policing written by Canadian cops (i.e. the ones most likely to see things from a conservative viewpoint) to which I already linked and from which I already quoted.

If you are open to being educated about it, in good faith, then this should be no trouble,

[Godstud]

Yes, the main benefit seems to be the lack of systemic racism by institutions like the police. Specifically, violence aimed at Black people. This corroborates the claim that the racism suffered by Black people in Japan is about individual Japanese bias against foreigners rather than systemic racism against Black people.

Perception.

Violence aimed at black people, by institutions in the USA is the exception, and not the rule. The perception of it being the rule, is the problem. This does not mean that systemic racism exists and you not supporting your argument speaks volumes about your confidence in said argument.

See? The main problems seem to be individual attitudes towards gaijin.

It's also the same in USA, where the vast majority of people are not racist. When you conclude that people are racist because of a system, you are claiming that they are, indeed, racist.

That individuals exist and are not controlled by the system, precludes the societal invention of systemic violence. Thus, any situation where violence is done against a black person, by a member of a "system", is considered systemic violence, in the USA.

Poverty is the overwhelming largest factor in crime. That historic factors affect poverty are undeniable, but there are no ongoing policies or laws affecting the individual black people in such a way as to be considered systemic racism. You cannot provide evidence that does not exist.


You make the mistake of considering me a "conservative"(and seem to consider it as some sort of slight) simply because I am trying to find a middle ground in the systemic racism debate. The arguments for an against exist and are ALL valid.

[Pants-of-dog]

Perception.
Violence aimed at black people, by institutions in the USA is the exception, and not the rule.

Perception.

This seems to be your subjective opinion.

At best, you can say that targeting Black people for police violence was recently made illegal, but it would still be correct to say that it is perfectly legal and normal for cops to shoot unarmed innocent Black people in their home if the cop feels justified.

The perception of it being the rule, is the problem. This does not mean that systemic racism exists and you not supporting your argument speaks volumes about your confidence in said argument.

No, I am supporting my argument.

I am simply not supporting the argument you foisted on me.

It's also the same in USA, where the vast majority of people are not racist. When you conclude that people are racist because of a system, you are claiming that they are, indeed, racist.

No.

I even quoted a definition of systemic racism that directly contradicts this.

Either you deliberately ignored what I quoted and bolded, or you did not actually read my carefully enough.

That individuals exist and are not controlled by the system, precludes the societal invention of systemic violence.

No. This is inaccurate.

Systemic violence can exist despite the fact that individuals exist who are not controlled by the system.

This is like saying slavery never existed because there were a handful of free Black people during that era.

Any situation where violence is done against a black person, by a member of a "system", is considered systemic violence, in the USA.

If this is true, then this is (at most) a description of people using the term inaccurately.

Poverty is the overwhelming largest factor in crime. That historic factors affect poverty are undeniable, but there are no ongoing policies or laws affecting the individual black people in such a way as to be considered systemic racism.

No, this is inaccurate, and can be easily verified by simply reading the PDF to which I already linked.

You make the mistake of considering me a "conservative"(and seem to consider it as some sort of slight) simply because I am trying to find a middle ground in the systemic racism debate. The arguments for an against exist and are ALL valid.

If there is one side saying a true and accurate thing (i.e. systemic anti-Blackness pervades US society but not Japanese society) and the other saying a completely inaccurate thing (i.e. systemic racism does not exist), truth does not lie in the middle ground.

[wat0n]

Perception.

This seems to be your subjective opinion.

At best, you can say that targeting Black people for police violence was recently made illegal, but it would still be correct to say that it is perfectly legal and normal for cops to shoot unarmed innocent Black people in their home if the cop feels justified.

"Recently"? I am still waiting for you to prove Memphis cops have the habit of being filmed beating African Americans to death.

Also, the whole premise of this thread is based on the perceptions and subjective opinions about the how racism in the US and Japan differ by some African American expats, just as many of the activists do given the preference for standpoint epistemics among CRT proponents.

Of course, this is no different from claiming global warming does not exist because some old people say they feel it's colder now than in the 1940s.

No, I am supporting my argument.

I am simply not supporting the argument you foisted on me.

You could have a go at supporting using IATs to measure unconscious racism (if such a thing exists) and then using them to explain why does racism exist.

No. This is inaccurate.

Systemic violence can exist despite the fact that individuals exist who are not controlled by the system.

This is like saying slavery never existed because there were a handful of free Black people during that era.

Out of curiosity, how would you classify isolated incidents of racism by one or more institutions?

I don't think it is systemic racism when such institutional behavior is called out and punished. Saying so is like saying society supports murder simply because the murder rate is above 0.

Do you agree with this idea?

If there is one side saying a true and accurate thing (i.e. systemic anti-Blackness pervades US society but not Japanese society) and the other saying a completely inaccurate thing (i.e. systemic racism does not exist), truth does not lie in the middle ground.

This does not really address the claim that poverty and class are alternative explanations to systemic racism for the persistence in the issues faced by many African Americans face.

It is also a middle point between claiming it's their fault, as is often claimed by some US conservatives, and saying it's because of systemic racism.

[ckaihatsu]

@ckaihatsu being a materialist yourself, why do you find it surprising?

This is yet-another *tangent* of yours, wat0n, where you want to think-up enough for just *one more post*, for the sake of *posting* itself, apparently.