321–330 of 350 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are lot of systematic "isms" -- capitalism, socialism, fascism, etc.
Those words aren't used the same way as "racism". To wit: Are communist Americans also capitalist because they part of systemic structural capitalism?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The modern left-wing view of racism is as a systematic, structural power relationship between races. Incorrect. More correct would be: the dominant modern left-wing view is that there exists now in much of the world, and has historically, a systematic structural power imbalances between groups identified as “races”, that this disproportionately harms some of those groups, and that this is bad thing. That the conflu…
The point is, structural disadvantages are perpetuated and worsened by people and behaviors that are not specifically discriminatory or hateful themselves. Of course the mechanism is usually related to discriminatory or hateful views held by someone at some point. I don’t like the conflation of terms either. But I see a lot of people talking past each other (“racism isn’t a big deal because most people aren’t racist…
There are vast piles of research showing that personal racial bias manifesting through discrimination, whether or not it is conscious/intentional, is pervasive in America.
Structural racism is real, but it is not independent of personal racism—it is produced by and perpetuates personal racism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm an ex-midwesterner living in Seattle. The midwest is not a place where you really strike it rich. It's a place where you have a shot of having a good family arrangement. You can easily surround yourself with relatives, and other folks like you. You're rarely forced into considering other points of view. There's a really strong sense of "being in your place" there, in many ways. I think the folks with a genuine cu…
Folks from those areas really want the economic growth from a new HQ, and were quick to point out progressive changes that happened in their city. They would never talk about those progressive changes in a positive light if big tech were not moving to their neighborhood. In a wider context you are probably correct, but it's worth pointing out that the urban areas in the South are pretty damn progressive.
The urban areas everywhere tend to be pretty progressive. The political and cultural distinctions between any given state's urban and rural areas are a lot more profound than the distinctions to be made based on West Coast, East Coast, South, or Midwest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't liking multiculturalism and respecting people different than you are two different things. You can be respectful and still wish to live in a more homogenous community.
You can respect someone while wishing they move out of your town? That's news to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ...a PoC can be negatively affected by racism... > ...that isn't the result of a racist act... Here, again, the words "racism" and "racist" mean two different things. I'm not sure why there's so much hesitance to just call the different things by different names. Also, nobody has minimized anything. I don't think clarity in communication promotes injustice or ignorance. On the contrary, actually.
No, they don't mean two different things any more than food means two separate things when describing broccoli and ice cream. It's a broad term that covers many more nuanced concepts. I was attempting to cover the difference between overt racism and systemic racism. There's your two separate terms but both are absolutely forms of racism and to say that systemic racism isn't is just an attempt to rid it of the stigma…
What am I attempting? Why shut down the conversation like that? We can be more civil and reasonable here.
I do think missing demographic goals in hiring does not deserve the same stigma as sending Jewish families to gas chambers. Both deserve distinct stigmas and should be described with distinct terms.
It's not "nuance" to use the same word in different ways in the same sentence. The problem with the word "racism" is that it clouds nuance, so if communicating nuance is your goal, better descriptive language should be attractive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's always been about socioeconomic classes, but the best proxy for it is race (or how you look...). If there were something more obvious, such as giant face tattoos or being obese and wearing mismatched/sloppy clothing, then we could use that too to infer which socioeconomic classes they are in and how they are likely to act.
So what you're really saying is that it's about culture. And that class is very highly correlated to culture
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is, structural disadvantages are perpetuated and worsened by people and behaviors that are not specifically discriminatory or hateful themselves. Of course the mechanism is usually related to discriminatory or hateful views held by someone at some point. I don’t like the conflation of terms either. But I see a lot of people talking past each other (“racism isn’t a big deal because most people aren’t racist…
The statements aren't true at the same time. Racism—of the personal kind—is very common (nigh universal), even if much of it is subconscious . There are vast piles of research showing that personal racial bias manifesting through discrimination, whether or not it is conscious/intentional, is pervasive in America. Structural racism is real, but it is not independent of personal racism—it is produced by and perpetuates…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The statements aren't true at the same time. Racism—of the personal kind—is very common (nigh universal), even if much of it is subconscious . There are vast piles of research showing that personal racial bias manifesting through discrimination, whether or not it is conscious/intentional, is pervasive in America. Structural racism is real, but it is not independent of personal racism—it is produced by and perpetuates…
I'm of the impression that most racial bias research depends on the implicit associations test, which hasn't been shown to actually measure bias and is apparently plagued by several other weaknesses including low reproducibility. I'm curious to know more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What alternative term would you use to refer to racially disparate outcomes that are the result of how large systems operate? The term "systemic racism" was coined and stuck because it's evocative of the actual idea, not as some sort of grand conspiracy to strip you of your honor. But I don't care. We can call it "silly putty" if it means we can actually talk about it instead of closely defending our honor. And if yo…
It's hard to believe you care about advancing the conversation when you respond with straw men and ad hominems. Of course, I'm used to it because I challenge positions like yours a lot. Still, the constant need to redirect these bad faith rebuttals is exhausting. To be clear, I don't care much for "my honor". Like I said, I care about making good outcomes politically tenable. As for conspiracy theories, that's litera…
You're right. Chalk it up to frustration in a different thread. My apologies.
> As for conspiracy theories, that's literally what "systemic racism" is
I mean, that's clearly hyperbolic, right? Systemic racism is a real thing -- see red lining or Jim Crow. We can at least agree that the concept is useful and refers to a real phenomenon, even if we're going to debate the severity/degree of that phenomenon in the present.
> you'd be trying to get rid of the weasel words
I don't think systemic racism is a weasel word. I think it's a well-chosen, evocative, and just damn accurate noun for the concept it represents.
Again, do you have an alternative word?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm of the impression that most racial bias research depends on the implicit associations test, which hasn't been shown to actually measure bias and is apparently plagued by several other weaknesses including low reproducibility. I'm curious to know more.
A lot of what I've seen is based on tests of behavior toward others in scenarios where factors other than indicators race (skin tone in photos or illustrations, race-stereotypical names in case files, etc.) are identical. These are direct measures of bias that manifests in discrimination, bypassing any problems with the IAT.