I doubt it was from a leftest source. The bullets are not left wing takes. I dont agree with the posters conclusions but the post had some good points.
Yes it did. Definitely something to start from anyway.
By the way, replied to your em.
FrioAg 00:
Leftist Democrats "have completely overplayed the Racism accusation. Honestly my first reaction when I hear it today is to assume bad intentions by the accuser, not the accused."
We do a disservice to ourselves when we dispute the proposition that systemic racism exists. Our response should be "Yes. But the parts of our system that harms blacks are byproducts of leftist philosophy and policies."
Well-intentioned or not, humans continuously screw things up but are too arrogant to recognize or admit it. The left and right are both guilty, although in different domains. However, the difference is that the left generally believes humans (they) can understand and control complex systems, as evidenced by their trust in academia. They are the John Hammonds of every complex system they touch.
The progress of blacks between the civil war and the 1950s was steady and undeniable, even in the face of Jim Crow. But that trend reversed and has deteriorated ever since. Although cataloging all interventions and their consequences in impossible, here are the big ones:
1) The minimum wage and its devastating effects on black employment, particularly the young and unskilled. This history has repeated itself a couple of dozen times since 1938.
2) A welfare system that catalyzed the destruction of black families, ultimately replacing fathers with overwhelmed mothers, gang members, or drug-dealers.
3) Liberal politicians and a media that blame the consequences of all the above on American ideals and encourage continuous rebellion of black youth, who resist education and other behaviors that they consider "acting white."
4) Teachers unions that really care about job security for teachers and perpetuating their own existence rather than educating children.
To address all the violence and poverty caused by all the above, the left decided to:
5) "Get guns off the street" by ignoring the 4th amendment and instituting aggressive policing, starting in Kansas City in 1994. This has since spread across the country.
Finally, the rise in perceived racist police brutality resulting directly from 5 combined with a disproportionate black crime rate caused by 1 through 4 gave rise to rioting in the streets, calls for "defunding the police" and "reparations." Who knows what the ramifications of these will be if they are instituted.
I doubt black Americans have blind loyalty to the left more than they want the problem fixed. Blacks are victims of systemic racism but should lay blame at the feet of the systems perpetuated by arrogant liberals. How do we help them recognize the real cause of their problems? How do we make them allies in our fight against liberalism?
We start by acknowledging that systemic racism in America is real.
This is why we should never have brought slaves to the US. No slaves, no future systemic racism, change my mind!
If you are going to attempt to discuss this accurately, let's reboot the starting point.
(A) "Systemic" is one of those terms you see thrown around as if it itself explains everything. Let alone a term like `systemic racism'.
(B) To the degree your bullet points outline aspects of it, it is crucial to understand nearly all of it now is a product of the Democratic Party, and this group think called the "News" - the MSM, both in turn products of left-wing academia lessons.
(C) As a result, its difficult to approach or even discuss accurately as long as the Democrats and the MSM set the narrative. But to try.
FIRST and Foremost, going to the above --- In layman's terms for a thread, WHAT does `systemic' mean? And how is it different from claiming legal discrimination laws (other than the reverse kind like AA and minority quotas) exist?
What is the difference?
FrioAg 00:
Leftist Democrats "have completely overplayed the Racism accusation. Honestly my first reaction when I hear it today is to assume bad intentions by the accuser, not the accused."
FIRST and Foremost, going to the above --- In layman's terms for a thread, WHAT does `systemic' mean? And how is it different from claiming legal discrimination laws (other than the reverse kind like AA and minority quotas) exist?
What is the difference?
By "systemic" I'm using the general definition of being a general emergent property of many interdependent things. I am not referring to explicit laws that treat people differently based on race, because although some people use this definition, this is not what is meant when leftists speak of "systemic racism." The interdependencies I'm referring to do not have to be "by design" but can be (and usually are) unintentional.
In the examples I gave in the OP, only number 3 is explicitly about race
Quote:
3) Liberal politicians and a media that blame the consequences of all the above on American ideals and encourage continuous rebellion of black youth, who resist education and other behaviors that they consider "acting white."
Factor #3 is probably is the catalyst that causes the vicious cycle of unintended consequences all of the other policies and positions to orbit around black Americans rather than around the poor generally.
Think of it this way, #3 above makes race an "attractor" in the system.
This is why we should never have brought slaves to the US. No slaves, no future systemic racism, change my mind!
Blacks are the easiest for the left to create a narrative around. But identity politics is fuel for calling out systemic "ism"s about every "class" as a reason for advocating more leftist, even Marxist, policies.
I don't think that the OP knows the difference between racism, prejudice and discrimination. There are laws against the latter and good luck with taking away personal freedoms in order to change human hearts with the post-modern construct of "systemic racism".
Yep. Systemic racism elected a black guy allegedly from africa to president. Also, see Supreme Court justices.
Yep. The consequences of systemic racism of the left (but attributed to conservative America) is why many people voted for Obama just because he's black.
Systemic racism is real, but it existed in the 60s and 70s.
The economic disparity (and consequently the crime disparity) we see now is a product of it. Many black families are still trying to dig their way out of the setbacks that were made 30-40 years ago. They are further along, but obviously it's still not going to be a level playing field.
However that same systemic racism doesn't exist now, and over the last few decades there probably hasn't been a time that racism towards blacks has been as low and they've been allowed to flourish.
So that's why it's a phrase that gets so much battle from both ends - yes it exists, but no the current generation isn't to blame for it and has done far more to combat than to increase it.
This is why we should never have brought slaves to the US. No slaves, no future systemic racism, change my mind!
Blacks are the easiest for the left to create a narrative around. But identity politics is fuel for calling out systemic "ism"s about every "class" as a reason for advocating more leftist, even Marxist, policies.
Slavery isn't really the cause. Liberalism is.
No blacks from slavery, no racial strife. It's really that simple. It was an injustice done upon them that should have never happened.
I don't think that the OP knows the difference between racism, prejudice and discrimination. There are laws against the latter and good luck with taking away personal freedoms in order to change human hearts with the post-modern construct of "systemic racism".
Sure I do. I've read almost all of Sowell. But the differences you are referring to are immaterial in today's discourse.
We won't get any traction screaming about those definitions. But we can take the "systemic" effects the left thinks exist and tie them to their own policies.
This is why we should never have brought slaves to the US. No slaves, no future systemic racism, change my mind!
Blacks are the easiest for the left to create a narrative around. But identity politics is fuel for calling out systemic "ism"s about every "class" as a reason for advocating more leftist, even Marxist, policies.
Slavery isn't really the cause. Liberalism is.
No blacks from slavery, no racial strife. It's really that simple. It was an injustice done upon them that should have never happened.
So? My point is that if we weren't mired in racial strife, would be a different kind of strife. After all, the "tyrannical patriarchy" is right behind slavery.
This is why we should never have brought slaves to the US. No slaves, no future systemic racism, change my mind!
Blacks are the easiest for the left to create a narrative around. But identity politics is fuel for calling out systemic "ism"s about every "class" as a reason for advocating more leftist, even Marxist, policies.
Slavery isn't really the cause. Liberalism is.
No blacks from slavery, no racial strife. It's really that simple. It was an injustice done upon them that should have never happened.
So? My point is that if we weren't mired in racial strife, would be a different kind of strife. After all, the "tyrannical patriarchy" is right behind slavery.
Racial strife is how you divide a nation. It's why open borders if being heavily pushed in Europe now. Without that, it's very very difficult to cause any sort of revolutionary movement in a mostly homogeneous population in a democracy.
This is a great post. The real systemic racism comes from the progressives underlying view point of the subtle racism of lowered expectations.
The voter ID video from Ami Horowitz is a great example of this. The kind progressive thinks that black people/POC are too poor and stupid to know how to get an ID, a tool required for basic navigation of society. In their attempt to "help" they are completely blind to their own systemic racist view of POC.
Just about every progressive policy ends up hurting the very people they set out to help.
Probably because progressives live in a fantasy world of "if only" rather than the real world of "if ... then..."
This is why we should never have brought slaves to the US. No slaves, no future systemic racism, change my mind!
Well Doc, get in your DeLorean and undo all this.
His silly point (I think) is that the only real answer is to dismantle America.
But we would also have to get rid of...well...just about everything.
What do we do about Native Americans that enslaved other Native Americans? Do we dismantle all native American tribes?
I'm a Slav. What do we do about the Muslim enslavement of my ancestors? Do we get rid of Islam? And since Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi was a Muslim and is the father of algebra, should we disband algebra and all of its derivatives?
This is why we should never have brought slaves to the US. No slaves, no future systemic racism, change my mind!
Well Doc, get in your DeLorean and undo all this.
His silly point (I think) is that the only real answer is to dismantle America.
But we would also have to get rid of...well...just about everything.
What do we do about Native Americans that enslaved other Native Americans? Do we dismantle all native American tribes?
I'm a Slav. What do we do about the Muslim enslavement of my ancestors? Do we get rid of Islam? And since Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi was a Muslim and is the father of algebra, should we disband algebra and all of its derivatives?
Dismantle America? America is the creation of Europe. It would have done nothing to the country since the Revolution would have happened anyway.
This is why we should never have brought slaves to the US. No slaves, no future systemic racism, change my mind!
Well Doc, get in your DeLorean and undo all this.
His silly point (I think) is that the only real answer is to dismantle America.
But we would also have to get rid of...well...just about everything.
What do we do about Native Americans that enslaved other Native Americans? Do we dismantle all native American tribes?
I'm a Slav. What do we do about the Muslim enslavement of my ancestors? Do we get rid of Islam? And since Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi was a Muslim and is the father of algebra, should we disband algebra and all of its derivatives?
Dismantle America? America is the creation of Europe. It would have done nothing to the country since the Revolution would have happened anyway.
Then what are you proposing (besides going back in time)?
FIRST and Foremost, going to the above --- In layman's terms for a thread, WHAT does `systemic' mean? And how is it different from claiming legal discrimination laws (other than the reverse kind like AA and minority quotas) exist?
What is the difference?
By "systemic" I'm using the general definition of being a general emergent property of many interdependent things. I am not referring to explicit laws that treat people differently based on race, because although some people use this definition, this is not what is meant when leftists speak of "systemic racism." The interdependencies I'm referring to do not have to be "by design" but can be (and usually are) unintentional.
In the examples I gave in the OP, only number 3 is explicitly about race
Quote:
3) Liberal politicians and a media that blame the consequences of all the above on American ideals and encourage continuous rebellion of black youth, who resist education and other behaviors that they consider "acting white."
Factor #3 is probably is the catalyst that causes the vicious cycle of unintended consequences all of the other policies and positions to orbit around black Americans rather than around the poor generally.
Think of it this way, #3 above makes race an "attractor" in the system.
Okay, good. Thanks. Would you give an unrelated example, it could even refer to a natural event, of your bold? It is starting to come together a way to shorthand it.
FrioAg 00:
Leftist Democrats "have completely overplayed the Racism accusation. Honestly my first reaction when I hear it today is to assume bad intentions by the accuser, not the accused."
FIRST and Foremost, going to the above --- In layman's terms for a thread, WHAT does `systemic' mean? And how is it different from claiming legal discrimination laws (other than the reverse kind like AA and minority quotas) exist?
What is the difference?
By "systemic" I'm using the general definition of being a general emergent property of many interdependent things. I am not referring to explicit laws that treat people differently based on race, because although some people use this definition, this is not what is meant when leftists speak of "systemic racism." The interdependencies I'm referring to do not have to be "by design" but can be (and usually are) unintentional.
In the examples I gave in the OP, only number 3 is explicitly about race
Quote:
3) Liberal politicians and a media that blame the consequences of all the above on American ideals and encourage continuous rebellion of black youth, who resist education and other behaviors that they consider "acting white."
Factor #3 is probably is the catalyst that causes the vicious cycle of unintended consequences all of the other policies and positions to orbit around black Americans rather than around the poor generally.
Think of it this way, #3 above makes race an "attractor" in the system.
Okay, good. Thanks. Would you give an unrelated example, it could even refer to a natural event, of your bold? It is starting to come together a way to shorthand it.
These are all emergent properties of some system, i.e., systemic:
1) heart disease 2) climate 3) football record 4) the courses of rivers
The details of the video below are subject to debate, but it gets the point across
5) "Get guns off the street" by ignoring the 4th amendment and instituting aggressive policing, starting in Kansas City in 1994. This has since spread across the country.
Finally, the rise in perceived racist police brutality resulting directly from 5 combined with a disproportionate black crime rate caused by 1 through 4 gave rise to rioting in the streets, calls for "defunding the police" and "reparations." Who knows what the ramifications of these will be if they are instituted.
Seriously? Street crime was getting much worse in urban areas leading up to the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. Community leaders wanted it, in fact.
Its worst provisions? The so called federal assault weapons ban.
But that same act also contained provisions for oversight of police' excessive use of force (which never seemed to have substantially materialized, probably due to lack of political support)
And despite its critics, crime plummeted in places like New York with the "broken windows" policing philosophy. Broken windows policing is not my preference and I have serious constitutional concerns about it, yet that authoritative intervention worked in densely populated areas, which, unfortunately, are inhabited by large proportions of POCs.
The far lower crime rates of places like Stephenville, TX or Twin Falls, ID did not not require such a dense police effort to disrupt street crime, because there wasn't much of it.
“If you’re going to have crime it should at least be organized crime”
-Havelock Vetinari
5) "Get guns off the street" by ignoring the 4th amendment and instituting aggressive policing, starting in Kansas City in 1994. This has since spread across the country.
Finally, the rise in perceived racist police brutality resulting directly from 5 combined with a disproportionate black crime rate caused by 1 through 4 gave rise to rioting in the streets, calls for "defunding the police" and "reparations." Who knows what the ramifications of these will be if they are instituted.
Seriously? Street crime was getting much worse in urban areas leading up to the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. Community leaders wanted it, in fact.
Its worst provisions? The so called federal assault weapons ban.
But that same act also contained provisions for oversight of police' excessive use of force (which never seemed to have substantially materialized, probably due to lack of political support)
And despite its critics, crime plummeted in places like New York with the "broken windows" policing philosophy. Broken windows policing is not my preference and I have serious constitutional concerns about it, yet that authoritative intervention worked in densely populated areas, which, unfortunately, are inhabited by large proportions of POCs.
The far lower crime rates of places like Stephenville, TX or Twin Falls, ID did not not require such a dense police effort to disrupt street crime, because there wasn't much of it.
I'm not disputing that KC style aggressive policing reduced violent crime. Of course, it did. We could reduce crime even further by policing Soviet-style. And sure...people are willing to dispense with the Fourth Amendment to avoid being shot in their neighborhoods.
Also, I was not referring just to the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. I'm talking about the experiments done in Kansas City that led to that act
I was making three points:
1) The "need" to resort to pulling people over because of very minor vehicle infractions as a pretext to ransack their car (to look for guns) is itself an unintended consequence of leftist policies that created the violence in those areas in the first place.
2) These aggressive policing tactics were created in Kansas City under a Democratic mayor (Emanuel Cleaver) and governor (Mel Carnahan).
3) Aggressive policing which is cited as "racist cops pulling blacks over and harassing them at much higher rates than whites" isn't about racist cops. It's about the aggressive policing tactics instituted by Democrats.
Almost no one knows that the entire cocktail of policies that have given rise to disproportionate aggressive policing of blacks are leftist Democrat policies, which is my entire thesis.
FIRST and Foremost, going to the above --- In layman's terms for a thread, WHAT does `systemic' mean? And how is it different from claiming legal discrimination laws (other than the reverse kind like AA and minority quotas) exist?
What is the difference?
By "systemic" I'm using the general definition of being a general emergent property of many interdependent things. I am not referring to explicit laws that treat people differently based on race, because although some people use this definition, this is not what is meant when leftists speak of "systemic racism." The interdependencies I'm referring to do not have to be "by design" but can be (and usually are) unintentional.
In the examples I gave in the OP, only number 3 is explicitly about race
Quote:
3) Liberal politicians and a media that blame the consequences of all the above on American ideals and encourage continuous rebellion of black youth, who resist education and other behaviors that they consider "acting white."
Factor #3 is probably is the catalyst that causes the vicious cycle of unintended consequences all of the other policies and positions to orbit around black Americans rather than around the poor generally.
Think of it this way, #3 above makes race an "attractor" in the system.
Okay, good. Thanks. Would you give an unrelated example, it could even refer to a natural event, of your bold? It is starting to come together a way to shorthand it.
These are all emergent properties of some system, i.e., systemic:
1) heart disease 2) climate 3) football record 4) the courses of rivers
The details of the video below are subject to debate, but it gets the point across
TEX465,
Thanks for the reply, and especially that fascinating video. Kudos to the choice, utterly neutral and fascinating to boot. It doesn't even matter if the details are true-- like you said, it gets the point across.
I now understand how you are are apparently using the term. Is this correct:
Systemic racism refers to present-day-lingering DOWNSTREAM effects from the era of Institutionalized racism. Those effects are as established, and yet also changeable again in turn, like the riverbanks were.
Second, you agreed that the Dem-MSM is the likely catalyst for why the effects persist in aggregating or the "attractor" factor operates.
With this understood, what would be the most lingering downstream effect that has been harmful in your opinion?
For example, we know it was not mothers out of wedlock, because the welfare and LBJ policies created that AFTER institutional racism ended. The black family destruction is caused by the two Presidencies between 1963-1974 . So that is one thing that is no due to the 19th C and Jim Crow eras as much. What is, in your opinion, that still lingers today?
FrioAg 00:
Leftist Democrats "have completely overplayed the Racism accusation. Honestly my first reaction when I hear it today is to assume bad intentions by the accuser, not the accused."
Systematic Racism is real until you actually try to identify it in laws, policy, training manuals, charters, or anywhere else that qualifies as a "system".
We also won't here about it or have "difficult convos" until 2024.
