Problematic Stuff

[Forty Two]

Nobody here has argued that there is no racism in society.

You have argued that there is no systemic racism.

I have argued that the United States, and western countries like Oz, etc., are not systemically racist countries. I have not argued that all cops are non-racist, or that all people are non-racist. However, the the system, overall, is not racist. The laws are not racist or sexist, except to the extent of seeking to benefit minorities and women. Also, the media is not racist against minorities, or sexist against women.

I think you have a very narrow definition of systemic racism; perhaps you think it has to be something actually in law, like the apartheid era in South Africa, or the segregation laws in fairly recent times in your south.

No. I think it has to be systemic. You seem to think that what racism remains is sporadic and individual, and cannot be systemic because of various anti-discrimination laws. Like an example given by Merriam-Webster - "The Globe’s Spotlight Team last year documented systemic breakdowns at the VA medical center in Manchester, N.H., a report that led to the ouster of four top officials, including the hospital’s director and chief of staff." - Brian Macquarrie, BostonGlobe.com, "Head of VA New England retires under pressure," 7 Mar. 2018. Thus, there can be a "breakdown" at the VA medical center, which would could be, say, a mistake or failure relative to a particular patient or patients, which is not a function of the system in place, but a deviation from it. Or, you could have a "systemic breakdown" which would entail a defect not in specific execution or unrelated examples, but rather the entire VA system.

If you had a racist at the VA, that would not mean the VA is systemically racist. To be systemically racist, the racism would have to rise to the level of the system itself - the way the VA is set up and run would have to be racist in and of itself. Saying the VA is not "systemically racist" would not be the same as saying there are never any racists at the VA.

That's the sort of thing I'm suggesting.

However, if the lived experience (backed by statistics) of people of different races (not just blacks in America; I include indigenous Australians, for example) is one of constant differential treatment (e.g. by police), then it is systemic, whether there is a veneer of anti-racism laws or not.

Well, "lived experience" is a really unfortunate term. But, your parenthetical "backed by statistics" suggests that where the stats show constant differential treatment then it is systemic. I would agree, it can be, but then the Devil is in the Details, and the quality of the statistics, and what they really show. More white people than black people, by far, are killed by cops. Now, on a per capita basis, more black people are killed by cops per capita, but when you adjust that for the amount of violent crime committed by blacks per capita as opposed to white people, it shows that cops are far more likely to be investigating and addressing violent and potentially violent situations in black communities than white communities.

Look at the gun violence stats. If you took out the "inner city" urban communities, the gun violence in the US would be at almost European levels, despite the massive prevalence of guns. The reason, arguably, there is more violence by law enforcement against blacks than whites per capita is directly related to the violence and criminal activity committed by those groups.

To suggest that the "system" in the US is racist against black people, however, would require proof that at a systemic level - the structure of either government or law enforcement, etc., is set up to be racist or has the purpose and effect of being racist. Quite the opposite exists, though - as you have not just laws facially making racist behavior illegal, but also lots of machinery in government and law enforcement designed to see that the system is not racist.

I don't deny that "racism" exists. But, the existence of racism and systemic racism are characteristically two different things.

[Forty Two]

One wonders why he constantly mentions that the law prohibits racism and sexism. His rhetoric is certainly aimed at making the impression that racism/sexism can't exist because it is illegal.

I don't constantly mention it. You constantly mention the strawman argument that I supposedly have said "the law prohibits racism and sexism, therefore there is no racism or sexism."

First off, I have never once said that the law prohibits racism or sexism. Why? Because it doesn't, and thankfully so. People have a fundamental right to be racist and sexist, and no law would or could prohibit the thoughts in people's heads. However, what the law does prohibit is certain racist and sexist conduct - like hiring discrimination, like racist application of laws, etc.

My rhetoric is not aimed at making an impression that racism/sexism cannot exist, because I have never once said that they cannot exist, and I have said many times that of course there are racist/sexist people. It's you who, as usual, seek to mischaracterize what other people say, because you know what they really mean. Then once you've done that, you falsely accuse people of actually expressing your mischaracterization.

[pErvinalia]

One wonders why he constantly mentions that the law prohibits racism and sexism. His rhetoric is certainly aimed at making the impression that racism/sexism can't exist because it is illegal.

I don't constantly mention it. You constantly mention the strawman argument that I supposedly have said "the law prohibits racism and sexism, therefore there is no racism or sexism."

First off, I have never once said that the law prohibits racism or sexism. Why? Because it doesn't, and thankfully so. People have a fundamental right to be racist and sexist, and no law would or could prohibit the thoughts in people's heads. However, what the law does prohibit is certain racist and sexist conduct - like hiring discrimination, like racist application of laws, etc.

That's what I meant. I assume you aren't going to deny having said this multiple times in similar previous debates?

My rhetoric is not aimed at making an impression that racism/sexism cannot exist, because I have never once said that they cannot exist, and I have said many times that of course there are racist/sexist people.

None of us ever talk about racist/sexist individuals. We are almost always talking about systemic racism/sexism. And your replies are always in that context.

Standing by for equivocation.

[Forty Two]

One wonders why he constantly mentions that the law prohibits racism and sexism. His rhetoric is certainly aimed at making the impression that racism/sexism can't exist because it is illegal.

I don't constantly mention it. You constantly mention the strawman argument that I supposedly have said "the law prohibits racism and sexism, therefore there is no racism or sexism."

First off, I have never once said that the law prohibits racism or sexism. Why? Because it doesn't, and thankfully so. People have a fundamental right to be racist and sexist, and no law would or could prohibit the thoughts in people's heads. However, what the law does prohibit is certain racist and sexist conduct - like hiring discrimination, like racist application of laws, etc.

That's what I meant. I assume you aren't going to deny having said this multiple times in similar previous debates?

Said what? That the law prohibits certain racist and sexist conduct, but does not prohibit racism or sexism? Of course I don't deny having said that. Why would I? It's accurate. It's also nothing at all like what you've attributed to me, which is that having laws against either racism, or even racist conducts, means there cannot be racism in the country. I've never said that. And, I assume you aren't going to deny that I never said that. I never implied it either. You made it up. You have accused me of saying that because there laws against it, that there can be no such thing as racism, right? And, you know full well that is not now and never has been my argument, right?

My rhetoric is not aimed at making an impression that racism/sexism cannot exist, because I have never once said that they cannot exist, and I have said many times that of course there are racist/sexist people.

None of us ever talk about racist/sexist individuals. We are almost always talking about systemic racism/sexism. And your replies are always in that context.

And, I have never said that racism or sexism cannot exist -- or even that racist and sexist conduct cannot occur - because there are laws against it. And, my replies in that regard are quite clear on that, and consistent. And, you know it.

Standing by for equivocation.

Equivocation about what? My consistent position on this topic?

Stand by for more straw men.

[pErvinalia]

One wonders why he constantly mentions that the law prohibits racism and sexism. His rhetoric is certainly aimed at making the impression that racism/sexism can't exist because it is illegal.

I don't constantly mention it. You constantly mention the strawman argument that I supposedly have said "the law prohibits racism and sexism, therefore there is no racism or sexism."

First off, I have never once said that the law prohibits racism or sexism. Why? Because it doesn't, and thankfully so. People have a fundamental right to be racist and sexist, and no law would or could prohibit the thoughts in people's heads. However, what the law does prohibit is certain racist and sexist conduct - like hiring discrimination, like racist application of laws, etc.

That's what I meant. I assume you aren't going to deny having said this multiple times in similar previous debates?

Said what? That the law prohibits certain racist and sexist conduct, but does not prohibit racism or sexism? Of course I don't deny having said that. Why would I? It's accurate.

The question is, though, WHY are you stating something not in contention, if not to try and rhetorically make a point? These replies are always in response to someone saying that systemic racism/sexism exists.

My rhetoric is not aimed at making an impression that racism/sexism cannot exist, because I have never once said that they cannot exist, and I have said many times that of course there are racist/sexist people.

None of us ever talk about racist/sexist individuals. We are almost always talking about systemic racism/sexism. And your replies are always in that context.

And, I have never said that racism or sexism cannot exist -- or even that racist and sexist conduct cannot occur - because there are laws against it. And, my replies in that regard are quite clear on that, and consistent.

Then they are non-sequiturs because they are given in the context of system racism, not individual racist conduct. Are you admitting to proffering non-sequiturs as a genuine reply?

And, you know it.

I know exactly how your rhetoric works.

[Forty Two]

One wonders why he constantly mentions that the law prohibits racism and sexism. His rhetoric is certainly aimed at making the impression that racism/sexism can't exist because it is illegal.

I don't constantly mention it. You constantly mention the strawman argument that I supposedly have said "the law prohibits racism and sexism, therefore there is no racism or sexism."

First off, I have never once said that the law prohibits racism or sexism. Why? Because it doesn't, and thankfully so. People have a fundamental right to be racist and sexist, and no law would or could prohibit the thoughts in people's heads. However, what the law does prohibit is certain racist and sexist conduct - like hiring discrimination, like racist application of laws, etc.

That's what I meant. I assume you aren't going to deny having said this multiple times in similar previous debates?

Said what? That the law prohibits certain racist and sexist conduct, but does not prohibit racism or sexism? Of course I don't deny having said that. Why would I? It's accurate.

The question is, though, WHY are you stating something not in contention, if not to try and rhetorically make a point? These replies are always in response to someone saying that systemic racism/sexism exists.

Err... because I dispute that the US is SYSTEMICALLY a racist/sexist country, except to the extent of favoring minorities and women in many respects. Otherwise, SYSTEMICALLY, it is race and sex neutral, generally speaking. While there are instances of, say, a racist cop being racist -- when such things are found out, the system is applied against the cop. As I have now said about 10 times -- there are racists in the US who do racist things, but that doesn't make the US a systemically racist country.

Examples of systemically racist countries are, like, Saudi Arabia. Or, like Zimbabwe, where the government is enacting and enforcing racist policies, forcible evictions and ethnic cleansing based on race. Those are some extreme examples.

My rhetoric is not aimed at making an impression that racism/sexism cannot exist, because I have never once said that they cannot exist, and I have said many times that of course there are racist/sexist people.

None of us ever talk about racist/sexist individuals. We are almost always talking about systemic racism/sexism. And your replies are always in that context.

And, I have never said that racism or sexism cannot exist -- or even that racist and sexist conduct cannot occur - because there are laws against it. And, my replies in that regard are quite clear on that, and consistent.

Then they are non-sequiturs because they are given in the context of system racism, not individual racist conduct. Are you admitting to proffering non-sequiturs as a genuine reply?

No, they aren't non sequiturs, because I have directly addressed the question of whether the US is systemically racist, and I have explained why. It's not hard to follow, unless, like you do, you re-craft the argument to be something else, and then claim that what I've argued is your recrafted argument.

And, you know it.

I know exactly how your rhetoric works.

You obviously don't. You just play games, mischaracterize what other people say, and try to start fights by doing so, because you post like a tool.

[Hermit]

...your parenthetical "backed by statistics" suggests that where the stats show constant differential treatment then it is systemic.

There is no law in Australia that permits Aborigines to be treated differently compared to anyone else, and yet they are discriminated on a massive scale. Have a look at the unemployment rates, for instance:

Unemployment rate(a), by age and Indigenous status — 2014–15.png (10.74 KiB) Viewed 2153 times

There are many other facets where discrimination occurs despite the lack of a law allowing it. There is systemic (or systematic - I don't care which word you prefer) racism in Australia without formal, legislative backing. I suggest asimilar situation exists in the USA, though we can quibble over the severity.

[pErvinalia]

I don't constantly mention it. You constantly mention the strawman argument that I supposedly have said "the law prohibits racism and sexism, therefore there is no racism or sexism."

First off, I have never once said that the law prohibits racism or sexism. Why? Because it doesn't, and thankfully so. People have a fundamental right to be racist and sexist, and no law would or could prohibit the thoughts in people's heads. However, what the law does prohibit is certain racist and sexist conduct - like hiring discrimination, like racist application of laws, etc.

That's what I meant. I assume you aren't going to deny having said this multiple times in similar previous debates?

Said what? That the law prohibits certain racist and sexist conduct, but does not prohibit racism or sexism? Of course I don't deny having said that. Why would I? It's accurate.

The question is, though, WHY are you stating something not in contention, if not to try and rhetorically make a point? These replies are always in response to someone saying that systemic racism/sexism exists.

Err... because I dispute that the US is SYSTEMICALLY a racist/sexist country,

Jeez, you walked into that one. And I wasn't even meaning to set a trap. You are now agreeing with me that you use that rhetorical argument to imply that there is no systemic racism/sexism in the US. Laws against racism/sexism in hiring practices etc is not an example of "systemic". It's an example of "systematic". And that's why I made the distinction in a comment to JimC a while back.

Examples of systemically racist countries are, like, Saudi Arabia. Or, like Zimbabwe, where the government is enacting and enforcing racist policies, forcible evictions and ethnic cleansing based on race. Those are some extreme examples.

They are both systemic and systematic. The US (and Australia etc) is systemic, not systematic.

My rhetoric is not aimed at making an impression that racism/sexism cannot exist, because I have never once said that they cannot exist, and I have said many times that of course there are racist/sexist people.

None of us ever talk about racist/sexist individuals. We are almost always talking about systemic racism/sexism. And your replies are always in that context.

And, I have never said that racism or sexism cannot exist -- or even that racist and sexist conduct cannot occur - because there are laws against it. And, my replies in that regard are quite clear on that, and consistent.

Then they are non-sequiturs because they are given in the context of system racism, not individual racist conduct. Are you admitting to proffering non-sequiturs as a genuine reply?

No, they aren't non sequiturs, because I have directly addressed the question of whether the US is systemically racist, and I have explained why.

But you are wrong. What you describe the US being free of is systematic racism/sexism, not systemic racism/sexism.

And, you know it.

I know exactly how your rhetoric works.

You obviously don't. You just play games, mischaracterize what other people say, and try to start fights by doing so, because you post like a tool.

[pErvinalia]

To clarify my understanding of the distinction between systemic and systematic:

Systemic refers to the behaviour of the system as a whole. Not following a set prescription of rules (laws) to produce an outcome (i.e. systematic). The distinction is important as systemic is agnostic about the individual parts or mandates within the system. It only concerns the outcome of the system. And that's the argument we are trying to present to you. That is, despite your systematic laws that prevent racist practices, the US (and many other western countries) are still racist/sexist in outcome. That is, they aren't systematically racist/sexist, but they are systemically racist/sexist.

And tying this back to your repeated mentioning of laws that forbid racist practices:
You use this argument to try and suggest that women and people of colour don't face disadvantage in the US (via a sort of emergent property of your system - i.e. systemic), when it's actually a non-sequitur. You aren't addressing the issue of systemic racism, you are addressing the issue of systematic racism.

[Forty Two]

Jeez, you walked into that one. And I wasn't even meaning to set a trap. You are now agreeing with me that you use that rhetorical argument to imply that there is no systemic racism/sexism in the US.

I said the US was not a systemically racist country. I did not say there was no systemic racism -- I, in fact, noted systemic racism in favor of minorities -- there are laws which expressly favor one race over another, purporting to help a disfavored group. Also, there are isolated examples of police who are racist, and as such one might say that they are the system, which is racist in that case. But, that's not the same as saying the US is systemically racist. I.e. you could have a racist Sheriff and deputy in a podunk town in Mississippi, which is the system in that town - but that doesn't make the US systemically racist. You don't have to eliminate every speck of racism for the a country not to be a systemically racist country.

Laws against racism/sexism in hiring practices etc is not an example of "systemic". It's an example of "systematic". And that's why I made the distinction in a comment to JimC a while back.

What the hell are you talking about? Systemic refers to the "system." The system is created by the laws which govern and create the system. Systematic means methodical - done according to a method. Systematic doesn't mean that the "the system" is a certain way. Systematic applies to how a given task is undertaken. Did you do it slipshod, haphazard and randomly? Or did you do it systematically? Systemic refers to the organized overall system. When you're talking about a country, the system is the structure of society, its laws, governments, and institutions.

Examples of systemically racist countries are, like, Saudi Arabia. Or, like Zimbabwe, where the government is enacting and enforcing racist policies, forcible evictions and ethnic cleansing based on race. Those are some extreme examples.

They are both systemic and systematic. The US (and Australia etc) is systemic, not systematic.

They may have both, sure. But neither the US nor Australia have racism built into their systems. They've removed racism from their systems. In some localities and/or certain persons may act systematically racist, but they don't convert the "system" in those countries into racist systems.

Then they are non-sequiturs because they are given in the context of system racism, not individual racist conduct. Are you admitting to proffering non-sequiturs as a genuine reply?

No, they aren't non sequiturs, because I have directly addressed the question of whether the US is systemically racist, and I have explained why.[/quote]

But you are wrong. What you describe the US being free of is systematic racism/sexism, not systemic racism/sexism. [/quote]

No, because you're wrong. The US is neither systemically racist, nor does the United States practice systematic racism (except insofar as certain policies are systemically and systematically designed to benefit races that have been called disfavored). Some people in the US practice racism systematically, sure. But they don't convert the system into a racist system.

[pErvinalia]

[following on from my last post]... Or (taking a lead from Hermit) we could even disregard semantics and get back to the fact that people of colour and women (to a lesser degree) face disadvantage in our societies, as Hermit has shown for the case of Aboriginals in Australia.

[Forty Two]

Change the topic if you like. You're wrong about the one we were discussing.

[pErvinalia]

Convincing argument. I concede.

[pErvinalia]

Regarding changing the topic, the disadvantage of women and people of colour is the real problem our society faces, not a tiny bunch of purple haired nutbags.

[Forty Two]

Convincing argument. I concede.

Doesn't matter what you concede. You're stupid.