|
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 09:38 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 09:16 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 09:08 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 09:06 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 09:00 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 08:55 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:50 Toadesstern wrote:On March 06 2016 08:47 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:41 m4ini wrote:On March 06 2016 08:37 ErectedZenith wrote:
[quote]
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. I mean it is wikipedia you guys are quoting. The point is that unless there is a law in USA that says yeah you are going to jail/get penalized because of your race, its all mental. And the sooner people stop victimizing themselves or spread propaganda for irrational fear of an "oppression law", the better it is for them. No, I referenced five sources which you decided to ignore, then you quoted a wikipedia article which actually proved you wrong, and now you are dismissing your own source as well. No, a law doesn't need to explicitly mention "black people are going to be penalized" for institutional racism to exist. Read the wikipedia article you quoted. Hell, read your own quote. At this point you are just arguing on semantics. But at the end of the day, if there isn't a law that says "yeah you are going to jail/get penalized because of your race", its a mentality that people have to get over with if they truly want to help the minorities. Because telling minorities when there are laws specifically target them for being w/e while w/e they are/are doing isn't a liability, they are going to keep victimizing themselves. You can't keep giving people mental obstacles while claiming to fight for social justice unless that's your business model. No, I'm not. You have invented in your head a definition of institutional racism which is completely disconnected from the real world (and not even consistent with itself) and which you are alone in defending. You're both profoundly ignorant and dishonest, since you're deliberately refusing to acknowledge the evidence you have been presented with. Institutional racism exists, and it is not a mental projection. No the actual smart people look at the law and see there is nothing stopping them from archiving their dreams under the law and they even get AA to propel them forward and say "America is a good place for them.". Only people who have invested interests in perpetuating their ways will rationalize why they keep doing what they do. Read the wikipedia article on institutional racism. Read it. You're ignorant on the topic.
Doesn't change the fact that there are no law negatively targeting black people.
|
On March 06 2016 09:38 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 09:16 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 09:08 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 09:06 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 09:00 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 08:55 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:50 Toadesstern wrote:On March 06 2016 08:47 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:41 m4ini wrote:On March 06 2016 08:37 ErectedZenith wrote:
[quote]
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. I mean it is wikipedia you guys are quoting. The point is that unless there is a law in USA that says yeah you are going to jail/get penalized because of your race, its all mental. And the sooner people stop victimizing themselves or spread propaganda for irrational fear of an "oppression law", the better it is for them. No, I referenced five sources which you decided to ignore, then you quoted a wikipedia article which actually proved you wrong, and now you are dismissing your own source as well. No, a law doesn't need to explicitly mention "black people are going to be penalized" for institutional racism to exist. Read the wikipedia article you quoted. Hell, read your own quote. At this point you are just arguing on semantics. But at the end of the day, if there isn't a law that says "yeah you are going to jail/get penalized because of your race", its a mentality that people have to get over with if they truly want to help the minorities. Because telling minorities when there are laws specifically target them for being w/e while w/e they are/are doing isn't a liability, they are going to keep victimizing themselves. You can't keep giving people mental obstacles while claiming to fight for social justice unless that's your business model. No, I'm not. You have invented in your head a definition of institutional racism which is completely disconnected from the real world (and not even consistent with itself) and which you are alone in defending. You're both profoundly ignorant and dishonest, since you're deliberately refusing to acknowledge the evidence you have been presented with. Institutional racism exists, and it is not a mental projection. No the actual smart people look at the law and see there is nothing stopping them from archiving their dreams under the law and they even get AA to propel them forward and say "America is a good place for them.". Only people who have invested interests in perpetuating their ways will rationalize why they keep doing what they do. Read the wikipedia article on institutional racism. Read it. You're ignorant on the topic.
The word your looking for is willful ignorance.
No point trying to educate someone who does not listen.want to listen.
|
Stealthblue, Kwark, Jilla etc.: do ErectedZenith's posts in the last few pages (willfully ignoring contradictory evidence and claiming that institutional racism affecting African Americans does not exist) not warrant at the very least a warning?
|
On March 06 2016 09:43 kwizach wrote:
Stealthblue, Kwark, Jilla etc.: do ErectedZenith's posts in the last few pages (willfully ignoring contradictory evidence and claiming that institutional racism affecting African Americans does not exist) not warrant at the very least a warning?
The great illiberal hypocrisy of the left on full display once again.
|
On March 06 2016 09:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 09:43 kwizach wrote:
Stealthblue, Kwark, Jilla etc.: do ErectedZenith's posts in the last few pages (willfully ignoring contradictory evidence and claiming that institutional racism affecting African Americans does not exist) not warrant at the very least a warning? The great illiberal hypocrisy of the left on full display once again.
Where's the hypocrisy? Do tell, because under no definition of the word am I being hypocritical. As usual, though, you'll make an accusation and not back it up.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's a live topic with some potential for good discussion imo. legal equality vs equality in reality.
some education is required here.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37043 Posts
On March 06 2016 09:43 kwizach wrote:
Stealthblue, Kwark, Jilla etc.: do ErectedZenith's posts in the last few pages (willfully ignoring contradictory evidence and claiming that institutional racism affecting African Americans does not exist) not warrant at the very least a warning?
I'm on it. And if you have any moderation questions then please take it to website feedback.
|
On March 06 2016 09:46 Seeker wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 09:43 kwizach wrote:
Stealthblue, Kwark, Jilla etc.: do ErectedZenith's posts in the last few pages (willfully ignoring contradictory evidence and claiming that institutional racism affecting African Americans does not exist) not warrant at the very least a warning? I'm on it. And if you have any moderation questions then please take it to website feedback.
Thanks.
|
On March 06 2016 08:52 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 06:47 oBlade wrote:On March 06 2016 06:30 Kyadytim wrote:On March 06 2016 05:23 oBlade wrote:On March 06 2016 04:49 Acrofales wrote:
Is ISIS a problem? Absolutely. And a very real aspect of it is its religious philosophy, which needs to be dealt with. But equating ISIS to all muslims is about as useful to equating the westboro baptists to all Christians. Nobody makes that equivalence. It's a self-serving strawman. Rather, there are problems in the Muslim world, and ISIS represents the combination of just about all the worst of those problems at once. Comparing the WBC to ISIS would be a fair analogy if the WBC did anything besides hold up signs calling soldiers "faggots" which is so common on the internet that I could probably use that fact to paint the WBC as an Xbox Live rather than religious problem and you would lap it up. Radical Islam has a near-monopoly in being the root cause or a factor of terrorism worldwide. I think a large part of that can be attributed to the way that similar acts from radical Christians or Jews are performed as the acts of nations, such as some of Israel's actions with regards to Palestine, or the US drone bombings that have some Pakistani kids scared of blue skies. Support for drone strikes correlates noticeably with belief that the US is fundamentally a Christian nation (we're not) or support for making Christianity the national religion of the US. Implicitly, radical Christians who want to go to war with Islam and exterminate Islam don't have to take independent action that can be labeled as terrorism, because they've got the government doing it for them. Of course, the government could be doing more of it. Thus Donald Trump winning primaries after saying that he'd target the families of terrorists, or Ted Cruz saying that the US shouldn't obey the rules of engagement or talking about bombing ISIS until the sand glows in the dark. By the way, that last bit, the glowing sand? That obliquely references the common but incorrect belief that radioactive sand glows in the dark. Basically, while terrorists acts are horrendous and reprehensible, they're the natural result of asymmetric warfare. The US is killing civilians. The people of the nations we're targeting are killing civilians. Because the US is in a position of strength, our kills, such as bombing a Doctors Without Borders hospital are labeled things like "tragic errors" or "collateral damage" and the other side's kills are labeled "terrorism." To be very clear, I am not defending or justifying the attacks listed on the linked wikipedia article. I am saying that in many ways, government actions of non-Muslims-majority nations against Muslim-majority nations are comparably bad, but whitewashed because they're government actions. The rhetoric used in primary debates in the USA is really just that - candidates who don't get daily briefings in the White House about what's going on are in no position to do anything but blow steam. They sound retarded, but they're not laying out policy proposals when they do that. Donald Trump has said 500 other things getting where he is in the primaries. "Collateral damage" is often criticized for being euphemistic. I'm going to use it because I think it's a fair enough term without making a value judgment about killing civilians, which I think most people would prefer never happened. The reason we differentiate "collateral damage" and "terrorism" is that one is deliberate. The military has systems, and I'll be the first to say I'm sure they could be better, need more whistleblowers, and so on, to punish abuses. What I believe you're ignoring is that most terrorism in the Muslim world is actually not directed towards the West, so what I'm getting at is a framework built on the assumption that violence in the Muslim world is fundamentally our "fault" isn't wise. Hmm. Two separate thoughts here. First, I brought up the primaries and what the candidates were saying as a way of demonstrating support for what they were saying. The point I was trying to make is that there is a noteworthy number of people who like what Trump and Cruz are saying and would like to see that steam become policy.
I just think it's more like venting. Those people don't really know or care what's going on with reality, but I understand it could go that way too.
Second, while there is a case to be made that actions of Western nations are a direct or indirect cause of terrorism committed by Muslims, I'm not really trying to make that case. It's no longer about who started the fight. The point that is relevant to me now is that the US (and some European nations) are in a defacto state of war against some organizations. It's asymmetric war in that these organizations can't meet the US military in an exchange of blows. Their military powers is extremely inferior compared to that of the US. However, they're not going to roll over and die, so they're going to fight back in the only way possible for people who can't win a direct fight: by trying to make the fight something that isn't worth it for the other side to engage in. It's still reprehensible, in my opinion, but war is pretty awful, and for the people on the weaker side, they're seeing friends and family die against a foe that is literally impossible for them to stop and also seems to want to kill them and everyone they know.
Where does the West have a significant military presence in the region (save for Israel)?
With this in mind, the state of the conflict between the US and European nations and Muslim organizations that the former have troops in or are committing air strikes in basically looks like this: The West can't actually lose the conflict. They just have an overwhelmingly superior military, should they choose to commit it. The Muslim organizations can't actually win the conflict. Under no circumstances can they end the war against them by effectively destroy the US infrastructure or topple the government. They have no viable method of surrender - they either fight to a draw or die(1). Given that the West is fighting to destroy the Muslim organizations and the Muslim organizations are fighting to survive, the victory condition for the Muslims and the loss condition for the West is that the citizenry of the Western nations cease to support the conflict, forcing the governments to withdraw. The West is fighting this by taking the moral high ground of calling the enemy military action aimed at achieving that goal terrorism. That last bit, that the West is trying to take a moral high ground via a pretty transparent labeling, is all that I object to.
"Muslim organizations" is an interesting characterization of Hamas and Al-Qaeda.
I (that is, my Western sensibilities) find the Muslim organizations such as ISIS and Boko Haram to be an affront to civilization in how they treat certain segments of the population in the areas they rule. I also I think that labeling the other side's acts as terrorism works and the Western government should continue doing it. I just think that people who want to have a discussion about the conflict should look at it as an asymmetric conflict based on differing ideology.
The US and its allies are at war with organizations such as ISIS and Boko Haram because we find how they treat powerless people to be so objectionable that it's worth engaging in a conflict with them to put an end to their treatment of the powerless(2). We are supporting the use of our overwhelming military might to deprive these people of their life, their liberty to self govern, and their freedom to follow what they call their religious beliefs(3). What we are calling terrorism is the desperate self defense of a group people we are waging on to annihilate them and their way of life. The goal of the military acts we call terrorism is to push citizens of the US and its allies into deciding that saving the victims of the Muslim organizations we are at war with isn't worth the cost to themselves.
We are not tyrannically denying the Taliban their inalienable right to self-determination. It's not that the ideologies are just different. It's that jihad is incompatible with civilization, whether that society is Muslim or Christian or secular or whatever.
(1) - As a thought experiment, assuming for a moment that the leadership of ISIS did decide to surrender, what are they offering? What are the terms of their surrender? The US has a history of hunting down leaders of the groups they oppose. Even assuming the leadership is granted life in prison, what is going to happen to the areas ruled by ISIS? How long will it take for the rule of some lawful government to affect those areas? What happens to all the soldiers of ISIS? Will they be allowed to live, or will they be executed or lynched by mobs? To arrange for a transition of power from ISIS to a different government is a logistical nightmare that is almost guaranteed to leave a pile of bodies of members of ISIS in its wake.
The creation of this thought experiment shows a misunderstanding of the nihilism of ISIS... they want to restore a caliphate. There is no notion of surrender. Remember The Dark Knight? Some men just want to watch the world burn? That kind of psychopathy does exist in reality. To the extent you're saying it's difficult for a region to transition, yes, but it seems to me there's nothing more important in the world.
(2) - The US is pretty terrible about treatment of powerless citizens (the poor and homeless), but it's mostly by neglect rather than outright ill will. It's still sort of hypocritical to fight problems abroad while we have so many at home, and this probably contributes to the popularity of Trump and Sanders.
(3) - The US internally is constantly weighing personal freedoms, including freedom to follow religious beliefs, against the rights of others to not be oppressed. At the very least, we seem to be consistent in that we're generally leaning against religious freedom in favor of freedom from oppression. However, a majority of strongly religious Christians seem to prefer religious freedom over freedom from oppression.
The problem is the US being the greatest country on Earth, there's very few other countries that could or would take up such a responsibility at the international level. The UN can do fuck all, for instance.
tl;dr:
I have no real problem using terrorism to refer to what you called terrorism in general discourse. I don't think it's useful to use that term when discussing the conflict against ISIS, Boko Haram, etc., because it obscures the nuances and details behind acts we're referring to as terrorism.
Of course language like "war on terrorism" is too vague to be useful. If the people who use language like that understand it's a poor approximation, and just want to use it as shorthand for the fact that there are totalitarian forces in the world that civilization needs to oppose, it's not so bad. But terrorism is ultimately a means, not an end.
Conclusions:
It's probably easier for Muslims who truly believe that they'll reach paradise for it to engage in suicidal attacks than other demographics, but some Christians or atheists would eventually be driven to similar actions when faced with the same overwhelming threat to their existence. Tibetan Buddhists faced with the same pressures elect self-immolation (suicide without killing others), but that's a religion that abhors violence in all of its forms. The common thread is that when people are pressed to the point of breaking, they engage in desperate acts, not that Muslims engage in desperate acts when pressed.
It's much easier when there's a promise of paradise and doctrine of martyrdom. Suicide bombers are also frequently socially engineered - manipulated, coerced. The religious aspect is a big factor in being able to convince someone else to blow themselves and others up.
Postscript:
So yeah, anyway, comparing Muslims who are committing terrorist acts to the Westboro Baptist Church isn't the greatest analogy, but comparing them to the not necessarily organized but existing collection of Christians who oppose abortion in all cases, oppose gay marriage (and think gay sex should be a crime), think that Christianity should be the national religion, would like Church attendance on Sundays should be mandatory, want the Biblical creation story taught in public schools alongside (or instead of) evolution, and in general would like to have laws enforcing Christian doctrines is valid. The effective difference is that the Christians in the US are not enough of a majority to have an opportunity to put their desires into practice.
You're making a mistake here. A Christian analog for ISIS would be the LRA (although the LRA is smaller and for other reasons it's not a perfect comparison). All those US Christians in the religious right that opposite abortion, gay marriage, creationists, etc., but don't participate in religious violence should be measured against all the conservative Muslims who have similar beliefs and even live in countries that execute political dissidents and minorities (gays) if you want to make a fair comparison.
As for other nations, you can read this article about some Christian extremist groups. If you do read it, please consider the parallels between organizations such as the Lord's Resistance Army, the National Liberation Front of Tripura, and Antibalaka and those such as Boko Haram and ISIS. Then consider what would happen if the US was drone bombing these organizations as aggressively as some Muslim ones, and tell me that you can't see the possibility of Christian terrorists who fervently believe that they are becoming martyrs engaging in suicidal attacks on the heathens, heretics, whatever, if the people of these groups were pushed as far as some Muslim organizations have been.
Christian terrorists in the US? Are you saying the US isn't taking a hard line on Boko Haram because it would inspire a bunch of domestic Ted Kaczynskis? I think that's pessimistic to the point of insulting the civil society the US has created. The reason the USA doesn't fight more abroad is that intervention is rarely politically popular or feasible because of the steps the US government has to go through. In short, we don't intervene in Somalia/Ethiopia, haven't in Syria so far, in Sudan, and so forth, because the American public basically doesn't care - because they're not focused on international issues. Because they're US citizens. Most humans' concerns tend to be close to home. Not because it wouldn't work or the US couldn't do it successfully.
|
On March 06 2016 09:43 kwizach wrote:
Stealthblue, Kwark, Jilla etc.: do ErectedZenith's posts in the last few pages (willfully ignoring contradictory evidence and claiming that institutional racism affecting African Americans does not exist) not warrant at the very least a warning?
you ask for the mods to intervene when all that's happened is someone disagreed with you, lol
|
On March 06 2016 09:45 oneofthem wrote:
it's a live topic with some potential for good discussion imo. legal equality vs equality in reality.
Exactly. Arguing that facially neutral policies carrying disparate impacts upon groups aren't really that problematic in general is perfectly legitimate. Suggesting that persons making the argument should be moderated reeks of fascism.
|
On March 06 2016 09:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 09:43 kwizach wrote:
Stealthblue, Kwark, Jilla etc.: do ErectedZenith's posts in the last few pages (willfully ignoring contradictory evidence and claiming that institutional racism affecting African Americans does not exist) not warrant at the very least a warning? The great illiberal hypocrisy of the left on full display once again.
And this is an example of what I was talking about a few pages back. Someone taking 1 persons actions and applying to it everyone that side.
It would be like me saying to your post "there goes the right again...always playing the victim card. Man so annoying how they always go defensive and act like they are oppressed when people disagree with them or demand more equal treatment"
|
So the GOP establishment seems to be either Rubio is losing everything and Cruz who everyone hates.
|
On March 06 2016 09:51 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 09:43 kwizach wrote:
Stealthblue, Kwark, Jilla etc.: do ErectedZenith's posts in the last few pages (willfully ignoring contradictory evidence and claiming that institutional racism affecting African Americans does not exist) not warrant at the very least a warning? you ask for the mods to intervene when all that's happened is someone disagreed with you, lol
I consider denying the existence of institutional racism against African Americans more than "someone disagreeing with me". It is a slap in the face of African Americans. He was also being willfully ignorant, since he repeatedly refused to acknowledge the evidence that was presented to him rebutting his point. It wouldn't be a big deal on a different topic, but on something as fundamental as the existence of racism that is a little harder to find excuses for. In any case, feel free to PM if you'd like to discuss the issue since we've been told to bring up matters like this in the website feedback forum and not in the thread.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 06 2016 09:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 09:45 oneofthem wrote:
it's a live topic with some potential for good discussion imo. legal equality vs equality in reality.
Exactly. Arguing that facially neutral policies carrying disparate impacts upon groups aren't really that problematic in general is perfectly legitimate. Suggesting that persons making the argument should be moderated reeks of fascism.
that's not really the argument made by some of the people. it's more like laws are equal therefore all is equal.
|
On March 06 2016 09:56 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 09:45 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2016 09:43 kwizach wrote:
Stealthblue, Kwark, Jilla etc.: do ErectedZenith's posts in the last few pages (willfully ignoring contradictory evidence and claiming that institutional racism affecting African Americans does not exist) not warrant at the very least a warning? The great illiberal hypocrisy of the left on full display once again. And this is an example of what I was talking about a few pages back. Someone taking 1 persons actions and applying to it everyone that side. It would be like me saying to your post "there goes the right again...always playing the victim card. Man so annoying how they always go defensive and act like they are oppressed when people disagree with them or demand more equal treatment"
Let's not pretend that Kwizach is the only one around here who is routinely guilty of what I pointed out. And believe me: I could play this card far more than I do. I just save it for the really egregious examples.
But yes, I generally agree with you.
|
On March 06 2016 09:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 09:45 oneofthem wrote:
it's a live topic with some potential for good discussion imo. legal equality vs equality in reality.
Exactly. Arguing that facially neutral policies carrying disparate impacts upon groups aren't really that problematic in general is perfectly legitimate. Suggesting that persons making the argument should be moderated reeks of fascism.
As usual, you are purposely and dishonestly distorting what was being said. The hypocrisy here is therefore entirely yours, given your frequent whining about the intellectual dishonesty found in this thread. He was not arguing about the legitimacy or not of policies having disparate impacts upon groups, he was outright denying the existence of institutional racism in the face of the evidence that was presented to him. The moderation rules of this forum are not fascistic, and what I asked for is in line with previous warnings and bans distributed previously in the thread.
Color me unsurprised to see you take the side of the person denying the existence of institutional racism, though.
|
On March 06 2016 09:43 kwizach wrote:
Stealthblue, Kwark, Jilla etc.: do ErectedZenith's posts in the last few pages (willfully ignoring contradictory evidence and claiming that institutional racism affecting African Americans does not exist) not warrant at the very least a warning?
Are you related to this woman by any chance?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IeyHc5ZNkfs
User was warned for this post
|
I don't see this going anywhere though without you getting over terminology. He's apparently misusing the word "institutional racism" and refuses to use it the way it's usually used. Because he refuses to do that (for whatever reason) he comes to another conclusion.
Imo you either ignore that (and him on that topic) or get beyond terminology and argue the issues without using that word because clearly that's getting in the way of understanding each other.
|
On March 06 2016 10:04 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 09:43 kwizach wrote:
Stealthblue, Kwark, Jilla etc.: do ErectedZenith's posts in the last few pages (willfully ignoring contradictory evidence and claiming that institutional racism affecting African Americans does not exist) not warrant at the very least a warning? Are you related to this woman by any chance? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IeyHc5ZNkfs
Ah, we did miss an appearance from the guy claiming that the left is the one to blame for Trump's success. I'm not too surprised that you're more comfortable posting youtube videos for cheap shots than responding to my rebuttal of your ludicrous assertion.
On March 06 2016 10:07 Toadesstern wrote:
I don't see this going anywhere though with you getting over terminology. He's apparently misusing the word "institutional racism" and refuses to use it the way it's usually used. Because he refuses to do that (for whatever reason) he comes to another conclusion.
Imo you either ignore that (and him on that topic) or get beyond terminology and argue the issues without using that word because clearly that's getting in the way of understanding each other.
He is defining "institutional racism" as "laws explicitly stating that black people have to be oppressed/put in jail", and denying the existence of institutional racism on that basis. It's a completely inane position to hold, and he's refusing to accept that his definition is not how institutional racism is understood by virtually everyone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
