|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 06 2016 08:06 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 08:04 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:02 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:59 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:57 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:48 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:33 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
Again, as I said like two pages back, these kind of discussions devolve into jargon definitions more than they do the points. For example, what two people actually mean when they use the term "institutional racism", especially when one individual is arguing on a micro scale and the other jumps in with macro. Please explain which definition would allow anyone to deny the existence of institutional racism against African Americans. Please show you understood the use of the words micro and macro...? Maybe ErectedZenith has a long posting history that I'm not aware of. In which case, my bad. But all I really see here is two different conversations happening, with GH attempting to reduce it to the most base level of dead people on the street. ErectedZenith was denying the existence of institutional racism against African Americans. You said GH and him might have been discussing different levels of analysis. Again, please explain with which definition and level of analysis ErectedZenith's assertion is supposed to hold. You seem to have completely misunderstood the discussion, perhaps because you jumped in the middle of it without reading what was posted prior. That's on you, not GH. Well, I think the few previous posts have shown there is a large difference in the usage of "institutional", so, right back to my point... Then again, since you are still not answering my question, with which definition of "institutional racism" does ErectedZenith's assertion that African Americans do not suffer from it hold? And again you're still missing my point, which is if you want to argue the points then argue the points. I'm certainly not going to argue on his behalf. I am going to call out you, and GH, if your argument consists of "dead black people". What the hell is that even supposed to mean? We've been calling out ErectedZenith for his statement, and I have provided links to several studies proving him wrong. You then decided to jump into the discussion, and you declared that the issue was perhaps that people were using different levels of analysis or definitions. The point is that no accepted definition of institutional racism makes ErectedZenith's statement true. If you're going to claim the opposite, then provide one such definition, otherwise the issue is not, as you claimed, that people were using "different definitions", but simply that ErectedZenith was utterly wrong, as should be fucking obvious to anyone even remotely educated on the issue. How about you show us one line of law that specifically negatively target black people. I gave you links to five studies documenting institutional racism against African Americans. Go address my post instead of pretending it doesn't exist.
Unless it is written in laws that specifically target black people negatively, it isn't institutionalized racism in USA.
|
On March 06 2016 08:05 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 08:02 Acrofales wrote:On March 06 2016 03:50 Acrofales wrote:On March 06 2016 03:48 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:36 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 03:34 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:00 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 02:42 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 02:41 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 02:35 ErectedZenith wrote:
[quote]
Both the left and the right created current state of Trump.
Left is too fiscally wasteful on how they want to spent the country's resources.
The right is too much of coward to go after Trump like the last Fox debate initially, now its too late. False equivalence. I refer you to the post to which you replied. It isn't making equivalence of anything. Its fact. Did you read your own post? You are portraying the right and the left has having equivalently contributed to the rise of Trump. "Left is too fiscally wasteful on how they want to spent the country's resources" is also not a fact. It's an opinion, and a simplistic and largely wrong one at that. Again, I refer you to my original post as to why the right is very much to blame for the rise of Trump. I didn't say they equivalenty contributed rise of Trump. It wasn't equally contributed at all. The Left have done much more to the rise of Trump much more than the Right. I refuted that idea in my original post. You're wrong, not much more to add. There is zero substance to support that ridiculous assertion of yours. You are assuming that he is a racist/sexist, which is a ridiculous assertion just by itself. Yeah.. you're just mad because you have blood coming out of your whatever... User was warned for this post I just wanted to point out that even with the state of this thread, TL STILL holds it to a higher standard than the US political debate. Reflect on that while you discuss whether or not institutionalized racism exists in the US. It is mind-blowing that you get warned for a tongue-in-cheek post ironically pointing to the fact that Trump has made sexist statements, while there are posters actively denying the existence of institutional racism against African Americans who are not even getting warned.
I'm pretty used to it now. Zenith isn't even the only one now, and that's how easy it flows.
|
On March 06 2016 07:56 biology]major wrote:
It's POC that hold themselves back with their own culture. If someone is born in inner city Baltimore are they more likely to not succeed? Probably. How is that the fault of the white man though? We give massive scholarships and acceptance rates for African Americans to get into college and grad schools. Just look at medical school for example, an African American student can get in with an mcat of a 25 while an Asian person likely needs to score mid 30's.
This "institutional racism" is a sham, there are some unpleasant truths people don't want to accept, and of course abdicating responsibility for your own actions is far easier. Don't even get me started on this BLM stuff.
It is pretty crazy how much easier it is for under represented minorities to get into med/dental/vet school. Just checking the tables here an applicant with a 3.0-3.19 GPA and 24-26 MCAT has a 3.1% chance of acceptance if Asian but 37.5% chance of acceptance if black. Which also leads to a higher percentage of URMs dropping out of med school because they can't handle it.
At the same time though diversity is important. There's a lot of underserved communities out there that are best served by representatives of those communities. One way to get better health care to latino/black communities is lower the bar to get more latino/black doctors that will provide care and do studies focused on their communities.
TBH I wish we could replace AA and instead address the disparity starting at K-12, but IDK how to do that. It has to be some mix of community efforts as well as institutional.
|
On March 06 2016 08:08 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 08:06 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 08:04 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:02 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:59 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:57 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:48 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:33 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Please explain which definition would allow anyone to deny the existence of institutional racism against African Americans. Please show you understood the use of the words micro and macro...? Maybe ErectedZenith has a long posting history that I'm not aware of. In which case, my bad. But all I really see here is two different conversations happening, with GH attempting to reduce it to the most base level of dead people on the street. ErectedZenith was denying the existence of institutional racism against African Americans. You said GH and him might have been discussing different levels of analysis. Again, please explain with which definition and level of analysis ErectedZenith's assertion is supposed to hold. You seem to have completely misunderstood the discussion, perhaps because you jumped in the middle of it without reading what was posted prior. That's on you, not GH. Well, I think the few previous posts have shown there is a large difference in the usage of "institutional", so, right back to my point... Then again, since you are still not answering my question, with which definition of "institutional racism" does ErectedZenith's assertion that African Americans do not suffer from it hold? And again you're still missing my point, which is if you want to argue the points then argue the points. I'm certainly not going to argue on his behalf. I am going to call out you, and GH, if your argument consists of "dead black people". What the hell is that even supposed to mean? We've been calling out ErectedZenith for his statement, and I have provided links to several studies proving him wrong. You then decided to jump into the discussion, and you declared that the issue was perhaps that people were using different levels of analysis or definitions. The point is that no accepted definition of institutional racism makes ErectedZenith's statement true. If you're going to claim the opposite, then provide one such definition, otherwise the issue is not, as you claimed, that people were using "different definitions", but simply that ErectedZenith was utterly wrong, as should be fucking obvious to anyone even remotely educated on the issue. How about you show us one line of law that specifically negatively target black people. I gave you links to five studies documenting institutional racism against African Americans. Go address my post instead of pretending it doesn't exist. Unless it is written in laws that specifically target black people negatively, it isn't institutionalized racism in USA.
There are plenty of laws that indirectly target African Americans negatively. Again, go look at the five sources I provided you with. And institutional racism extends way beyond the laws themselves, which you would know if you had any clue of what you were talking about. "Institutional" doesn't only apply to laws. Read about the term on wikipedia if you need to.
|
On March 06 2016 08:06 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 08:04 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:02 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:59 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:57 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:48 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:33 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
Again, as I said like two pages back, these kind of discussions devolve into jargon definitions more than they do the points. For example, what two people actually mean when they use the term "institutional racism", especially when one individual is arguing on a micro scale and the other jumps in with macro. Please explain which definition would allow anyone to deny the existence of institutional racism against African Americans. Please show you understood the use of the words micro and macro...? Maybe ErectedZenith has a long posting history that I'm not aware of. In which case, my bad. But all I really see here is two different conversations happening, with GH attempting to reduce it to the most base level of dead people on the street. ErectedZenith was denying the existence of institutional racism against African Americans. You said GH and him might have been discussing different levels of analysis. Again, please explain with which definition and level of analysis ErectedZenith's assertion is supposed to hold. You seem to have completely misunderstood the discussion, perhaps because you jumped in the middle of it without reading what was posted prior. That's on you, not GH. Well, I think the few previous posts have shown there is a large difference in the usage of "institutional", so, right back to my point... Then again, since you are still not answering my question, with which definition of "institutional racism" does ErectedZenith's assertion that African Americans do not suffer from it hold? And again you're still missing my point, which is if you want to argue the points then argue the points. I'm certainly not going to argue on his behalf. I am going to call out you, and GH, if your argument consists of "dead black people". What the hell is that even supposed to mean? We've been calling out ErectedZenith for his statement, and I have provided links to several studies proving him wrong. You then decided to jump into the discussion, and you declared that the issue was perhaps that people were using different levels of analysis or definitions. The point is that no accepted definition of institutional racism makes ErectedZenith's statement true. If you're going to claim the opposite, then provide one such definition, otherwise the issue is not, as you claimed, that people were using "different definitions", but simply that ErectedZenith was utterly wrong, as should be fucking obvious to anyone even remotely educated on the issue. How about you show us one line of law that specifically negatively target black people. I gave you links to five studies/publications documenting institutional racism against African Americans. Go address my post instead of pretending it doesn't exist.
Nobody can open the first three, buster (and they were about Britain).
|
On March 06 2016 08:21 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 08:06 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 08:04 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:02 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:59 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:57 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:48 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:33 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Please explain which definition would allow anyone to deny the existence of institutional racism against African Americans. Please show you understood the use of the words micro and macro...? Maybe ErectedZenith has a long posting history that I'm not aware of. In which case, my bad. But all I really see here is two different conversations happening, with GH attempting to reduce it to the most base level of dead people on the street. ErectedZenith was denying the existence of institutional racism against African Americans. You said GH and him might have been discussing different levels of analysis. Again, please explain with which definition and level of analysis ErectedZenith's assertion is supposed to hold. You seem to have completely misunderstood the discussion, perhaps because you jumped in the middle of it without reading what was posted prior. That's on you, not GH. Well, I think the few previous posts have shown there is a large difference in the usage of "institutional", so, right back to my point... Then again, since you are still not answering my question, with which definition of "institutional racism" does ErectedZenith's assertion that African Americans do not suffer from it hold? And again you're still missing my point, which is if you want to argue the points then argue the points. I'm certainly not going to argue on his behalf. I am going to call out you, and GH, if your argument consists of "dead black people". What the hell is that even supposed to mean? We've been calling out ErectedZenith for his statement, and I have provided links to several studies proving him wrong. You then decided to jump into the discussion, and you declared that the issue was perhaps that people were using different levels of analysis or definitions. The point is that no accepted definition of institutional racism makes ErectedZenith's statement true. If you're going to claim the opposite, then provide one such definition, otherwise the issue is not, as you claimed, that people were using "different definitions", but simply that ErectedZenith was utterly wrong, as should be fucking obvious to anyone even remotely educated on the issue. How about you show us one line of law that specifically negatively target black people. I gave you links to five studies/publications documenting institutional racism against African Americans. Go address my post instead of pretending it doesn't exist. Nobody can open the first three, buster (and they were about Britain).
False, the first one is about the United States (and the points raised in the other two are largely valid for the U.S. as well). I included the fourth and fifth sources precisely for people who do not have access to scientific journals. But please, feel free to open google scholar if you're among those who are unaware of the existence of institutional racism against African Americans.
|
On March 06 2016 08:08 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 08:06 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 08:04 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:02 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:59 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:57 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:48 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:33 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Please explain which definition would allow anyone to deny the existence of institutional racism against African Americans. Please show you understood the use of the words micro and macro...? Maybe ErectedZenith has a long posting history that I'm not aware of. In which case, my bad. But all I really see here is two different conversations happening, with GH attempting to reduce it to the most base level of dead people on the street. ErectedZenith was denying the existence of institutional racism against African Americans. You said GH and him might have been discussing different levels of analysis. Again, please explain with which definition and level of analysis ErectedZenith's assertion is supposed to hold. You seem to have completely misunderstood the discussion, perhaps because you jumped in the middle of it without reading what was posted prior. That's on you, not GH. Well, I think the few previous posts have shown there is a large difference in the usage of "institutional", so, right back to my point... Then again, since you are still not answering my question, with which definition of "institutional racism" does ErectedZenith's assertion that African Americans do not suffer from it hold? And again you're still missing my point, which is if you want to argue the points then argue the points. I'm certainly not going to argue on his behalf. I am going to call out you, and GH, if your argument consists of "dead black people". What the hell is that even supposed to mean? We've been calling out ErectedZenith for his statement, and I have provided links to several studies proving him wrong. You then decided to jump into the discussion, and you declared that the issue was perhaps that people were using different levels of analysis or definitions. The point is that no accepted definition of institutional racism makes ErectedZenith's statement true. If you're going to claim the opposite, then provide one such definition, otherwise the issue is not, as you claimed, that people were using "different definitions", but simply that ErectedZenith was utterly wrong, as should be fucking obvious to anyone even remotely educated on the issue. How about you show us one line of law that specifically negatively target black people. I gave you links to five studies documenting institutional racism against African Americans. Go address my post instead of pretending it doesn't exist. Unless it is written in laws that specifically target black people negatively, it isn't institutionalized racism in USA.
Dude.. Do everyone a favor, and check what "institutionalized racism" actually means.
Big hint: you got it wrong. Kwizach got it right.
But since i have my helpful 5 minutes, let me help you there. To have "institutionalized racism", you don't need biased laws/laws targeted at specific people. Practices and/or societal patterns already do suffice.
Nobody can open the first three, buster (and they were about Britain).
It actually doesn't matter what they were about. Or do you think that what's considered institutionalized racism in one country, is totally not institutionalized racism in the US?
|
On March 06 2016 08:24 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 08:21 oBlade wrote:On March 06 2016 08:06 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 08:04 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:02 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:59 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:57 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:48 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
Please show you understood the use of the words micro and macro...?
Maybe ErectedZenith has a long posting history that I'm not aware of. In which case, my bad. But all I really see here is two different conversations happening, with GH attempting to reduce it to the most base level of dead people on the street. ErectedZenith was denying the existence of institutional racism against African Americans. You said GH and him might have been discussing different levels of analysis. Again, please explain with which definition and level of analysis ErectedZenith's assertion is supposed to hold. You seem to have completely misunderstood the discussion, perhaps because you jumped in the middle of it without reading what was posted prior. That's on you, not GH. Well, I think the few previous posts have shown there is a large difference in the usage of "institutional", so, right back to my point... Then again, since you are still not answering my question, with which definition of "institutional racism" does ErectedZenith's assertion that African Americans do not suffer from it hold? And again you're still missing my point, which is if you want to argue the points then argue the points. I'm certainly not going to argue on his behalf. I am going to call out you, and GH, if your argument consists of "dead black people". What the hell is that even supposed to mean? We've been calling out ErectedZenith for his statement, and I have provided links to several studies proving him wrong. You then decided to jump into the discussion, and you declared that the issue was perhaps that people were using different levels of analysis or definitions. The point is that no accepted definition of institutional racism makes ErectedZenith's statement true. If you're going to claim the opposite, then provide one such definition, otherwise the issue is not, as you claimed, that people were using "different definitions", but simply that ErectedZenith was utterly wrong, as should be fucking obvious to anyone even remotely educated on the issue. How about you show us one line of law that specifically negatively target black people. I gave you links to five studies/publications documenting institutional racism against African Americans. Go address my post instead of pretending it doesn't exist. Nobody can open the first three, buster (and they were about Britain). False, the first one is about the United States (and the points raised in the other two are largely valid for the U.S. as well). I included the fourth and fifth sources precisely for people who do not have access to scientific journals.
My mistake, only 66% of the sources that nobody can open are about Britain when you said the subject was African-Americans. The fourth and fifth are books, 75% of the contents of which aren't available so we can hardly look at the issue for ourselves. But I guess being able to read them isn't important for your goals. I doubt you even read them yourself. You said you Googled "institutional racism" and posted the first 5 things that came up, right? You're not using these sources to make any points or arguments. You're just spamming us with them as if to say Look, someone has written about the subject, therefore I "win."
On March 06 2016 08:26 m4ini wrote:
It actually doesn't matter what they were about.
|
On March 06 2016 08:09 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 07:56 biology]major wrote:
It's POC that hold themselves back with their own culture. If someone is born in inner city Baltimore are they more likely to not succeed? Probably. How is that the fault of the white man though? We give massive scholarships and acceptance rates for African Americans to get into college and grad schools. Just look at medical school for example, an African American student can get in with an mcat of a 25 while an Asian person likely needs to score mid 30's.
This "institutional racism" is a sham, there are some unpleasant truths people don't want to accept, and of course abdicating responsibility for your own actions is far easier. Don't even get me started on this BLM stuff. It is pretty crazy how much easier it is for under represented minorities to get into med/dental/vet school. Just checking the tables here an applicant with a 3.0-3.19 GPA and 24-26 MCAT has a 3.1% chance of acceptance if Asian but 37.5% chance of acceptance if black. Which also leads to a higher percentage of URMs dropping out of med school because they can't handle it. At the same time though diversity is important. There's a lot of underserved communities out there that are best served by representatives of those communities. One way to get better health care to latino/black communities is lower the bar to get more latino/black doctors that will provide care and do studies focused on their communities. TBH I wish we could replace AA and instead address the disparity starting at K-12, but IDK how to do that. It has to be some mix of community efforts as well as institutional.
How much does that really matter when the kinds of schools most African Americans go to through high school are shit that do not prepare them for this or the fact that their much lower socioeconomic status during childhood has detrimental effects in terms of culture and biology? Check out the science on the adverse effects on adult health and cognitive outcomes when you grow up in a poor environment.
I would be fine if universities took away affirmative action if the country got off its ass and helped address the root problems. Because helping them at the University level can backfire for those it helps because theyou started in such a big hole.
|
On March 06 2016 08:28 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 08:24 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 08:21 oBlade wrote:On March 06 2016 08:06 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 08:04 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:02 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:59 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:57 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:48 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
ErectedZenith was denying the existence of institutional racism against African Americans. You said GH and him might have been discussing different levels of analysis. Again, please explain with which definition and level of analysis ErectedZenith's assertion is supposed to hold.
You seem to have completely misunderstood the discussion, perhaps because you jumped in the middle of it without reading what was posted prior. That's on you, not GH. Well, I think the few previous posts have shown there is a large difference in the usage of "institutional", so, right back to my point... Then again, since you are still not answering my question, with which definition of "institutional racism" does ErectedZenith's assertion that African Americans do not suffer from it hold? And again you're still missing my point, which is if you want to argue the points then argue the points. I'm certainly not going to argue on his behalf. I am going to call out you, and GH, if your argument consists of "dead black people". What the hell is that even supposed to mean? We've been calling out ErectedZenith for his statement, and I have provided links to several studies proving him wrong. You then decided to jump into the discussion, and you declared that the issue was perhaps that people were using different levels of analysis or definitions. The point is that no accepted definition of institutional racism makes ErectedZenith's statement true. If you're going to claim the opposite, then provide one such definition, otherwise the issue is not, as you claimed, that people were using "different definitions", but simply that ErectedZenith was utterly wrong, as should be fucking obvious to anyone even remotely educated on the issue. How about you show us one line of law that specifically negatively target black people. I gave you links to five studies/publications documenting institutional racism against African Americans. Go address my post instead of pretending it doesn't exist. Nobody can open the first three, buster (and they were about Britain). False, the first one is about the United States (and the points raised in the other two are largely valid for the U.S. as well). I included the fourth and fifth sources precisely for people who do not have access to scientific journals. My mistake, only 66% of the sources that nobody can open are about Britain when you said the subject was African-Americans. The fourth and fifth are books, 75% of the contents of which aren't available so we can hardly look at the issue for ourselves. But I guess being able to read them isn't important for your goals. I doubt you even read them yourself. You said you Googled "institutional racism" and posted the first 5 things that came up, right? You're not using these sources to make any points or arguments. You're just spamming us with them as if to say Look, someone has written about the subject, therefore I "win".
I am using those sources to substantiate the assertion that institutional racism against African Americans exists. I'm pretty sure that scientific studies documenting that fact are the best kind of source I could possibly use to support that point. What did you expect, youtube videos? Blog posts? The two books are partly available, and easy to find in their entirety if you're familiar with this thing called the internet. If you were actually interested in learning more about the issue, you could even -- *gasp* -- go to your nearest library, possibly university library, to educate yourself on the topic. Imagine that.
edit: or perhaps you were looking for a wikipedia article? Here you go.
|
On March 06 2016 08:26 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 08:08 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:06 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 08:04 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:02 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:59 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:57 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:48 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
Please show you understood the use of the words micro and macro...?
Maybe ErectedZenith has a long posting history that I'm not aware of. In which case, my bad. But all I really see here is two different conversations happening, with GH attempting to reduce it to the most base level of dead people on the street. ErectedZenith was denying the existence of institutional racism against African Americans. You said GH and him might have been discussing different levels of analysis. Again, please explain with which definition and level of analysis ErectedZenith's assertion is supposed to hold. You seem to have completely misunderstood the discussion, perhaps because you jumped in the middle of it without reading what was posted prior. That's on you, not GH. Well, I think the few previous posts have shown there is a large difference in the usage of "institutional", so, right back to my point... Then again, since you are still not answering my question, with which definition of "institutional racism" does ErectedZenith's assertion that African Americans do not suffer from it hold? And again you're still missing my point, which is if you want to argue the points then argue the points. I'm certainly not going to argue on his behalf. I am going to call out you, and GH, if your argument consists of "dead black people". What the hell is that even supposed to mean? We've been calling out ErectedZenith for his statement, and I have provided links to several studies proving him wrong. You then decided to jump into the discussion, and you declared that the issue was perhaps that people were using different levels of analysis or definitions. The point is that no accepted definition of institutional racism makes ErectedZenith's statement true. If you're going to claim the opposite, then provide one such definition, otherwise the issue is not, as you claimed, that people were using "different definitions", but simply that ErectedZenith was utterly wrong, as should be fucking obvious to anyone even remotely educated on the issue. How about you show us one line of law that specifically negatively target black people. I gave you links to five studies documenting institutional racism against African Americans. Go address my post instead of pretending it doesn't exist. Unless it is written in laws that specifically target black people negatively, it isn't institutionalized racism in USA. Dude.. Do everyone a favor, and check what "institutionalized racism" actually means. Big hint: you got it wrong. Kwizach got it right. But since i have my helpful 5 minutes, let me help you there. To have "institutionalized racism", you don't need biased laws/laws targeted at specific people. Practices and/or societal patterns already do suffice. It actually doesn't matter what they were about. Or do you think that what's considered institutionalized racism in one country, is totally not institutionalized racism in the US?
Institutional racism (also known as institutionalised racism) is a form of racism expressed in the practice of social and political institutions, as distinct from racism by individuals or informal social groups.
So facilities that are political which have rules made by the law which the law doesn't have a line that specifically negatively target black folks.
|
On March 06 2016 08:37 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 08:26 m4ini wrote:On March 06 2016 08:08 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:06 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 08:04 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:02 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:59 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:57 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:48 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
ErectedZenith was denying the existence of institutional racism against African Americans. You said GH and him might have been discussing different levels of analysis. Again, please explain with which definition and level of analysis ErectedZenith's assertion is supposed to hold.
You seem to have completely misunderstood the discussion, perhaps because you jumped in the middle of it without reading what was posted prior. That's on you, not GH. Well, I think the few previous posts have shown there is a large difference in the usage of "institutional", so, right back to my point... Then again, since you are still not answering my question, with which definition of "institutional racism" does ErectedZenith's assertion that African Americans do not suffer from it hold? And again you're still missing my point, which is if you want to argue the points then argue the points. I'm certainly not going to argue on his behalf. I am going to call out you, and GH, if your argument consists of "dead black people". What the hell is that even supposed to mean? We've been calling out ErectedZenith for his statement, and I have provided links to several studies proving him wrong. You then decided to jump into the discussion, and you declared that the issue was perhaps that people were using different levels of analysis or definitions. The point is that no accepted definition of institutional racism makes ErectedZenith's statement true. If you're going to claim the opposite, then provide one such definition, otherwise the issue is not, as you claimed, that people were using "different definitions", but simply that ErectedZenith was utterly wrong, as should be fucking obvious to anyone even remotely educated on the issue. How about you show us one line of law that specifically negatively target black people. I gave you links to five studies documenting institutional racism against African Americans. Go address my post instead of pretending it doesn't exist. Unless it is written in laws that specifically target black people negatively, it isn't institutionalized racism in USA. Dude.. Do everyone a favor, and check what "institutionalized racism" actually means. Big hint: you got it wrong. Kwizach got it right. But since i have my helpful 5 minutes, let me help you there. To have "institutionalized racism", you don't need biased laws/laws targeted at specific people. Practices and/or societal patterns already do suffice. Nobody can open the first three, buster (and they were about Britain).
It actually doesn't matter what they were about. Or do you think that what's considered institutionalized racism in one country, is totally not institutionalized racism in the US? Institutional racism (also known as institutionalised racism) is a form of racism expressed in the practice of social and political institutions, as distinct from racism by individuals or informal social groups. So facilities that are political which have rules made by the law which the law doesn't have a line that specifically negatively target black folks.
You forgot to quote the rest of wikipedia.
Here, let me help you yet again.
It is reflected in disparities regarding criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power and education, among other things. Whether implicitly or explicitly expressed, institutional racism occurs when a certain group is targeted and discriminated against based upon race. Institutional racism can go unnoticed as it is not always explicit and can be overlooked. Institutional racism was defined by Sir William Macpherson in the 1999 Lawrence report (UK) as: "The collective failure of an organisation 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 which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people."
Sorry for all the bolding, it's just that you left out EVERYTHING when you posted your comment, so.. Yeah.
edit: damn, ninja'd by m4ini :-)
Sorry, gonna leave it at that now though - waste of time, really. I don't think you'll get a satisfying answer to your very real point.
|
On March 06 2016 08:37 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 08:26 m4ini wrote:On March 06 2016 08:08 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:06 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 08:04 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:02 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:59 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:57 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:48 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
ErectedZenith was denying the existence of institutional racism against African Americans. You said GH and him might have been discussing different levels of analysis. Again, please explain with which definition and level of analysis ErectedZenith's assertion is supposed to hold.
You seem to have completely misunderstood the discussion, perhaps because you jumped in the middle of it without reading what was posted prior. That's on you, not GH. Well, I think the few previous posts have shown there is a large difference in the usage of "institutional", so, right back to my point... Then again, since you are still not answering my question, with which definition of "institutional racism" does ErectedZenith's assertion that African Americans do not suffer from it hold? And again you're still missing my point, which is if you want to argue the points then argue the points. I'm certainly not going to argue on his behalf. I am going to call out you, and GH, if your argument consists of "dead black people". What the hell is that even supposed to mean? We've been calling out ErectedZenith for his statement, and I have provided links to several studies proving him wrong. You then decided to jump into the discussion, and you declared that the issue was perhaps that people were using different levels of analysis or definitions. The point is that no accepted definition of institutional racism makes ErectedZenith's statement true. If you're going to claim the opposite, then provide one such definition, otherwise the issue is not, as you claimed, that people were using "different definitions", but simply that ErectedZenith was utterly wrong, as should be fucking obvious to anyone even remotely educated on the issue. How about you show us one line of law that specifically negatively target black people. I gave you links to five studies documenting institutional racism against African Americans. Go address my post instead of pretending it doesn't exist. Unless it is written in laws that specifically target black people negatively, it isn't institutionalized racism in USA. Dude.. Do everyone a favor, and check what "institutionalized racism" actually means. Big hint: you got it wrong. Kwizach got it right. But since i have my helpful 5 minutes, let me help you there. To have "institutionalized racism", you don't need biased laws/laws targeted at specific people. Practices and/or societal patterns already do suffice. Nobody can open the first three, buster (and they were about Britain).
It actually doesn't matter what they were about. Or do you think that what's considered institutionalized racism in one country, is totally not institutionalized racism in the US? Institutional racism (also known as institutionalised racism) is a form of racism expressed in the practice of social and political institutions, as distinct from racism by individuals or informal social groups. So facilities that are political which have rules made by the law which the law doesn't have a line that specifically negatively target black folks.
I love how the first part of your post is a copy/paste from the wikipedia article on institutional racism, and yet you somehow manage to keep denying its existence despite the article providing ample evidence and source documenting it. See here.
edit: damn, ninja'd by m4ini :-)
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
there is no question about the existence of discrimination but the 'institutional' definition matters, particularly the legal definition. it's too narrow. then the existence of these civil rights legislations suggest to some that equality has been achieved.
|
On March 06 2016 08:33 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 08:28 oBlade wrote:On March 06 2016 08:24 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 08:21 oBlade wrote:On March 06 2016 08:06 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 08:04 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:02 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:59 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:57 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
Well, I think the few previous posts have shown there is a large difference in the usage of "institutional", so, right back to my point... Then again, since you are still not answering my question, with which definition of "institutional racism" does ErectedZenith's assertion that African Americans do not suffer from it hold? And again you're still missing my point, which is if you want to argue the points then argue the points. I'm certainly not going to argue on his behalf. I am going to call out you, and GH, if your argument consists of "dead black people". What the hell is that even supposed to mean? We've been calling out ErectedZenith for his statement, and I have provided links to several studies proving him wrong. You then decided to jump into the discussion, and you declared that the issue was perhaps that people were using different levels of analysis or definitions. The point is that no accepted definition of institutional racism makes ErectedZenith's statement true. If you're going to claim the opposite, then provide one such definition, otherwise the issue is not, as you claimed, that people were using "different definitions", but simply that ErectedZenith was utterly wrong, as should be fucking obvious to anyone even remotely educated on the issue. How about you show us one line of law that specifically negatively target black people. I gave you links to five studies/publications documenting institutional racism against African Americans. Go address my post instead of pretending it doesn't exist. Nobody can open the first three, buster (and they were about Britain). False, the first one is about the United States (and the points raised in the other two are largely valid for the U.S. as well). I included the fourth and fifth sources precisely for people who do not have access to scientific journals. My mistake, only 66% of the sources that nobody can open are about Britain when you said the subject was African-Americans. The fourth and fifth are books, 75% of the contents of which aren't available so we can hardly look at the issue for ourselves. But I guess being able to read them isn't important for your goals. I doubt you even read them yourself. You said you Googled "institutional racism" and posted the first 5 things that came up, right? You're not using these sources to make any points or arguments. You're just spamming us with them as if to say Look, someone has written about the subject, therefore I "win". I am using those sources to substantiate the assertion that institutional racism against African Americans exists. I'm pretty sure that scientific studies documenting that fact are the best kind of source I could possibly use to support that point. What did you expect, youtube videos? Blog posts? The two books are partly available, and easy to find in their entirety if you're familiar with this thing called the internet. If you were actually interested in learning more about the issue, you could even -- *gasp* -- go to your nearest library, possibly university library, to educate yourself on the topic. Imagine that.
Is "educate yourself" all you want to say on the subject?
|
On March 06 2016 08:41 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 08:37 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:26 m4ini wrote:On March 06 2016 08:08 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:06 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 08:04 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:02 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:59 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:57 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
Well, I think the few previous posts have shown there is a large difference in the usage of "institutional", so, right back to my point... Then again, since you are still not answering my question, with which definition of "institutional racism" does ErectedZenith's assertion that African Americans do not suffer from it hold? And again you're still missing my point, which is if you want to argue the points then argue the points. I'm certainly not going to argue on his behalf. I am going to call out you, and GH, if your argument consists of "dead black people". What the hell is that even supposed to mean? We've been calling out ErectedZenith for his statement, and I have provided links to several studies proving him wrong. You then decided to jump into the discussion, and you declared that the issue was perhaps that people were using different levels of analysis or definitions. The point is that no accepted definition of institutional racism makes ErectedZenith's statement true. If you're going to claim the opposite, then provide one such definition, otherwise the issue is not, as you claimed, that people were using "different definitions", but simply that ErectedZenith was utterly wrong, as should be fucking obvious to anyone even remotely educated on the issue. How about you show us one line of law that specifically negatively target black people. I gave you links to five studies documenting institutional racism against African Americans. Go address my post instead of pretending it doesn't exist. Unless it is written in laws that specifically target black people negatively, it isn't institutionalized racism in USA. Dude.. Do everyone a favor, and check what "institutionalized racism" actually means. Big hint: you got it wrong. Kwizach got it right. But since i have my helpful 5 minutes, let me help you there. To have "institutionalized racism", you don't need biased laws/laws targeted at specific people. Practices and/or societal patterns already do suffice. Nobody can open the first three, buster (and they were about Britain).
It actually doesn't matter what they were about. Or do you think that what's considered institutionalized racism in one country, is totally not institutionalized racism in the US? Institutional racism (also known as institutionalised racism) is a form of racism expressed in the practice of social and political institutions, as distinct from racism by individuals or informal social groups. So facilities that are political which have rules made by the law which the law doesn't have a line that specifically negatively target black folks. You forgot to quote the rest of wikipedia. Here, let me help you yet again. Show nested quote + It is reflected in disparities regarding criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power and education, among other things. Whether implicitly or explicitly expressed, institutional racism occurs when a certain group is targeted and discriminated against based upon race. Institutional racism can go unnoticed as it is not always explicit and can be overlooked. Institutional racism was defined by Sir William Macpherson in the 1999 Lawrence report (UK) as: "The collective failure of an organisation 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 which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people." Sorry for all the bolding, it's just that you left out EVERYTHING when you posted your comment, so.. Yeah. Sorry, gonna leave it at that now though - waste of time, really. I don't think you'll get a satisfying answer to your very real point.
All of those falls under law which the USA doesn't have a line of negatively targeting black folks. You are reaching pretty far on this one.
|
On March 06 2016 08:02 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 03:50 Acrofales wrote:On March 06 2016 03:48 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:36 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 03:34 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:00 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 02:42 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 02:41 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 02:35 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 01:09 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Posts like this are really rich because they clearly display the massive dishonesty and hypocrisy displayed by many on the right when it comes to responsibility. They will be harping about "personal responsibility" all the time, but when it comes to the actual responsibility of the right/Republican party for literally anything, they'll always weasel their way into finding someone else to blame ("Thanks, Obama.").
The left did not create Trump. At all. The right created two things, which allowed for Trump's rise:
1. With regards to the whole debate on political correctness, the right took an epiphenomenon (yes, there have been some issues here and there on campuses with protests preventing some speakers from holding their conferences) and turned it into a giant caricature in order to have something to rally against. Cries about "political correctness" are usually cries about not being able to openly state racist and sexist views that are no longer deemed acceptable, because society has become more critical of bigots and the different routes through which bigotry is expressed and acted upon. Many people on the right have made this into a huge issue precisely because they would like to be seen as victims (another hilarious hypocrisy -- blaming people on the left who supposedly play the "victim card", when they're doing it all the time) instead of bigots, and because it's a useful tool to rile up and mobilize their base. When someone seen as a fierce opponent of "political correctness" therefore becomes popular notably due to that trait, you can blame the right for how prominent the issue has become as a caricature, not the left.
2. More importantly and fundamentally, the right is responsible for creating a climate of fear regarding pretty much all of the buttons that Trump is pushing: the idea that the U.S. is in a terrible state (not true), the idea that all other states walk over the U.S. on the international stage (not true), the idea that immigrants have a negative impact on the economy (not true), the idea that the U.S. would be better off without Obama's stimulus and its contribution to the debt (not true), the idea that there are easy solutions to ISIS that Obama is not pursuing (not true), the idea that Obama is a president who doesn't love the U.S. (not true), etc. etc. The right is entirely responsible for the bogeymen they've constructed about Obama, his policies, and the state of the U.S. for the last eight years, it is responsible for the inflammatory rhetoric they've employed on these topics, and it is responsible for the despicable tolerance it has shown towards extreme ideas and individuals in its ranks (did the left encourage Trump in his xenophobic insistence that Obama may not be an American? Or was that the right, as usual?).
The idea that the left created Trump is both factually false and a perfect example of the hypocrisy coming from the right on these issues. It'd be laughable if it wasn't a terrible sign regarding the state of American politics. Both the left and the right created current state of Trump. Left is too fiscally wasteful on how they want to spent the country's resources. The right is too much of coward to go after Trump like the last Fox debate initially, now its too late. False equivalence. I refer you to the post to which you replied. It isn't making equivalence of anything. Its fact. Did you read your own post? You are portraying the right and the left has having equivalently contributed to the rise of Trump. "Left is too fiscally wasteful on how they want to spent the country's resources" is also not a fact. It's an opinion, and a simplistic and largely wrong one at that. Again, I refer you to my original post as to why the right is very much to blame for the rise of Trump. I didn't say they equivalenty contributed rise of Trump. It wasn't equally contributed at all. The Left have done much more to the rise of Trump much more than the Right. I refuted that idea in my original post. You're wrong, not much more to add. There is zero substance to support that ridiculous assertion of yours. You are assuming that he is a racist/sexist, which is a ridiculous assertion just by itself. Yeah.. you're just mad because you have blood coming out of your whatever... User was warned for this post I just wanted to point out that even with the state of this thread, TL STILL holds it to a higher standard than the US political debate. Reflect on that while you discuss whether or not institutionalized racism exists in the US.
Wait how is your warning related to the existence of institutional racism in the US? This isn't a TV news program competing for ratings, it's a discussion forum.
|
On March 06 2016 08:47 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 08:33 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 08:28 oBlade wrote:On March 06 2016 08:24 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 08:21 oBlade wrote:On March 06 2016 08:06 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 08:04 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:02 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:59 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:57 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Then again, since you are still not answering my question, with which definition of "institutional racism" does ErectedZenith's assertion that African Americans do not suffer from it hold? And again you're still missing my point, which is if you want to argue the points then argue the points. I'm certainly not going to argue on his behalf. I am going to call out you, and GH, if your argument consists of "dead black people". What the hell is that even supposed to mean? We've been calling out ErectedZenith for his statement, and I have provided links to several studies proving him wrong. You then decided to jump into the discussion, and you declared that the issue was perhaps that people were using different levels of analysis or definitions. The point is that no accepted definition of institutional racism makes ErectedZenith's statement true. If you're going to claim the opposite, then provide one such definition, otherwise the issue is not, as you claimed, that people were using "different definitions", but simply that ErectedZenith was utterly wrong, as should be fucking obvious to anyone even remotely educated on the issue. How about you show us one line of law that specifically negatively target black people. I gave you links to five studies/publications documenting institutional racism against African Americans. Go address my post instead of pretending it doesn't exist. Nobody can open the first three, buster (and they were about Britain). False, the first one is about the United States (and the points raised in the other two are largely valid for the U.S. as well). I included the fourth and fifth sources precisely for people who do not have access to scientific journals. My mistake, only 66% of the sources that nobody can open are about Britain when you said the subject was African-Americans. The fourth and fifth are books, 75% of the contents of which aren't available so we can hardly look at the issue for ourselves. But I guess being able to read them isn't important for your goals. I doubt you even read them yourself. You said you Googled "institutional racism" and posted the first 5 things that came up, right? You're not using these sources to make any points or arguments. You're just spamming us with them as if to say Look, someone has written about the subject, therefore I "win". I am using those sources to substantiate the assertion that institutional racism against African Americans exists. I'm pretty sure that scientific studies documenting that fact are the best kind of source I could possibly use to support that point. What did you expect, youtube videos? Blog posts? The two books are partly available, and easy to find in their entirety if you're familiar with this thing called the internet. If you were actually interested in learning more about the issue, you could even -- *gasp* -- go to your nearest library, possibly university library, to educate yourself on the topic. Imagine that. Is "educate yourself" all you want to say on the subject?
No, what I wanted to say was that institutional racism targeting African Americans exists, and I substantiated that assertion extensively. What is it that you want to say on the subject? Are you arguing that it doesn't exist?
On March 06 2016 08:47 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 08:41 m4ini wrote:On March 06 2016 08:37 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:26 m4ini wrote:On March 06 2016 08:08 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:06 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 08:04 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:02 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:59 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:57 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Then again, since you are still not answering my question, with which definition of "institutional racism" does ErectedZenith's assertion that African Americans do not suffer from it hold? And again you're still missing my point, which is if you want to argue the points then argue the points. I'm certainly not going to argue on his behalf. I am going to call out you, and GH, if your argument consists of "dead black people". What the hell is that even supposed to mean? We've been calling out ErectedZenith for his statement, and I have provided links to several studies proving him wrong. You then decided to jump into the discussion, and you declared that the issue was perhaps that people were using different levels of analysis or definitions. The point is that no accepted definition of institutional racism makes ErectedZenith's statement true. If you're going to claim the opposite, then provide one such definition, otherwise the issue is not, as you claimed, that people were using "different definitions", but simply that ErectedZenith was utterly wrong, as should be fucking obvious to anyone even remotely educated on the issue. How about you show us one line of law that specifically negatively target black people. I gave you links to five studies documenting institutional racism against African Americans. Go address my post instead of pretending it doesn't exist. Unless it is written in laws that specifically target black people negatively, it isn't institutionalized racism in USA. Dude.. Do everyone a favor, and check what "institutionalized racism" actually means. Big hint: you got it wrong. Kwizach got it right. But since i have my helpful 5 minutes, let me help you there. To have "institutionalized racism", you don't need biased laws/laws targeted at specific people. Practices and/or societal patterns already do suffice. Nobody can open the first three, buster (and they were about Britain).
It actually doesn't matter what they were about. Or do you think that what's considered institutionalized racism in one country, is totally not institutionalized racism in the US? Institutional racism (also known as institutionalised racism) is a form of racism expressed in the practice of social and political institutions, as distinct from racism by individuals or informal social groups. So facilities that are political which have rules made by the law which the law doesn't have a line that specifically negatively target black folks. You forgot to quote the rest of wikipedia. Here, let me help you yet again. It is reflected in disparities regarding criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power and education, among other things. Whether implicitly or explicitly expressed, institutional racism occurs when a certain group is targeted and discriminated against based upon race. Institutional racism can go unnoticed as it is not always explicit and can be overlooked. Institutional racism was defined by Sir William Macpherson in the 1999 Lawrence report (UK) as: "The collective failure of an organisation 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 which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people." Sorry for all the bolding, it's just that you left out EVERYTHING when you posted your comment, so.. Yeah. edit: damn, ninja'd by m4ini :-)
Sorry, gonna leave it at that now though - waste of time, really. I don't think you'll get a satisfying answer to your very real point. All of those falls under law which the USA doesn't have a line of negatively targeting black folks. You are reaching pretty far on this one.
The very source that you quoted (or rather plagiarized, since you didn't give attribution) documents and explains the existence of institutional racism. You were wrong. Stop embarrassing yourself.
|
On March 06 2016 08:29 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 08:09 ZeaL. wrote:On March 06 2016 07:56 biology]major wrote:
It's POC that hold themselves back with their own culture. If someone is born in inner city Baltimore are they more likely to not succeed? Probably. How is that the fault of the white man though? We give massive scholarships and acceptance rates for African Americans to get into college and grad schools. Just look at medical school for example, an African American student can get in with an mcat of a 25 while an Asian person likely needs to score mid 30's.
This "institutional racism" is a sham, there are some unpleasant truths people don't want to accept, and of course abdicating responsibility for your own actions is far easier. Don't even get me started on this BLM stuff. It is pretty crazy how much easier it is for under represented minorities to get into med/dental/vet school. Just checking the tables here an applicant with a 3.0-3.19 GPA and 24-26 MCAT has a 3.1% chance of acceptance if Asian but 37.5% chance of acceptance if black. Which also leads to a higher percentage of URMs dropping out of med school because they can't handle it. At the same time though diversity is important. There's a lot of underserved communities out there that are best served by representatives of those communities. One way to get better health care to latino/black communities is lower the bar to get more latino/black doctors that will provide care and do studies focused on their communities. TBH I wish we could replace AA and instead address the disparity starting at K-12, but IDK how to do that. It has to be some mix of community efforts as well as institutional. How much does that really matter when the kinds of schools most African Americans go to through high school are shit that do not prepare them for this or the fact that their much lower socioeconomic status during childhood has detrimental effects in terms of culture and biology? Check out the science on the adverse effects on adult health and cognitive outcomes when you grow up in a poor environment. I would be fine if universities took away affirmative action if the country got off its ass and helped address the root problems. Because helping them at the University level can backfire for those it helps because theyou started in such a big hole.
I... agree? Not sure what find issue with but yeah, the problem is better addressed through reform of k-12 not AA at uni/grad school.
|
On March 06 2016 08:47 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 08:41 m4ini wrote:On March 06 2016 08:37 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:26 m4ini wrote:On March 06 2016 08:08 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:06 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 08:04 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:02 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:59 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:57 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Then again, since you are still not answering my question, with which definition of "institutional racism" does ErectedZenith's assertion that African Americans do not suffer from it hold? And again you're still missing my point, which is if you want to argue the points then argue the points. I'm certainly not going to argue on his behalf. I am going to call out you, and GH, if your argument consists of "dead black people". What the hell is that even supposed to mean? We've been calling out ErectedZenith for his statement, and I have provided links to several studies proving him wrong. You then decided to jump into the discussion, and you declared that the issue was perhaps that people were using different levels of analysis or definitions. The point is that no accepted definition of institutional racism makes ErectedZenith's statement true. If you're going to claim the opposite, then provide one such definition, otherwise the issue is not, as you claimed, that people were using "different definitions", but simply that ErectedZenith was utterly wrong, as should be fucking obvious to anyone even remotely educated on the issue. How about you show us one line of law that specifically negatively target black people. I gave you links to five studies documenting institutional racism against African Americans. Go address my post instead of pretending it doesn't exist. Unless it is written in laws that specifically target black people negatively, it isn't institutionalized racism in USA. Dude.. Do everyone a favor, and check what "institutionalized racism" actually means. Big hint: you got it wrong. Kwizach got it right. But since i have my helpful 5 minutes, let me help you there. To have "institutionalized racism", you don't need biased laws/laws targeted at specific people. Practices and/or societal patterns already do suffice. Nobody can open the first three, buster (and they were about Britain).
It actually doesn't matter what they were about. Or do you think that what's considered institutionalized racism in one country, is totally not institutionalized racism in the US? Institutional racism (also known as institutionalised racism) is a form of racism expressed in the practice of social and political institutions, as distinct from racism by individuals or informal social groups. So facilities that are political which have rules made by the law which the law doesn't have a line that specifically negatively target black folks. You forgot to quote the rest of wikipedia. Here, let me help you yet again. It is reflected in disparities regarding criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power and education, among other things. Whether implicitly or explicitly expressed, institutional racism occurs when a certain group is targeted and discriminated against based upon race. Institutional racism can go unnoticed as it is not always explicit and can be overlooked. Institutional racism was defined by Sir William Macpherson in the 1999 Lawrence report (UK) as: "The collective failure of an organisation 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 which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people." Sorry for all the bolding, it's just that you left out EVERYTHING when you posted your comment, so.. Yeah. edit: damn, ninja'd by m4ini :-)
Sorry, gonna leave it at that now though - waste of time, really. I don't think you'll get a satisfying answer to your very real point. All of those falls under law which the USA doesn't have a line of negatively targeting black folks. You are reaching pretty far on this one.
but it says right there that it's not explicit and does not need to be written out. Which is what you're arguing. That it only counts as institutionalized if there's some kind of order from higher ups / laws resulting in racism, right?
There have been enough investigations showing that ferguson and co DID treat black people differently. That's institutionalized racism right there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
