DiscussMormonism.com

Structural racisim is one of those topics that require me to spend time thinking about how to think about it. It seems perfectly obvious to me that rules that appear neutral on their face can have a discriminatory impact in practice. To me, that's the classic example of how a structure can be racist even though none of the individuals that design, implement, participate in, or benefit from the structure intend the structure to be discriminatory. The law has recognized this for years, acknowledging that both de jure and de facto discrimination exist.

What this tells me is that, when thinking about racisim, it is not enough to discuss rules and principles in a vacuum -- everything must be placed in context. And that context is the structure.

To me, that's where 99% of race discussions among white folks -- especially white men -- that I've observed miss the boat. They are limited to discussing abstract principles in a vacuum in an attempt to create rules that are "fair for everyone." But what appears fair in a vacuum may be deeply unfair depending on the structure that the rule is embedded in. That fact is never considered, and the the white folks go on their merry way, patting themselves on the back that they've "solved" racism. It's a kind of willful blindness. And it functions to allow racist structures to persist in society.

Icarus wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 11, 2020 2:37 am

subgenius wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 11, 2020 2:04 am

why u no list Chicago? Baltimore? Detroit? St Louis?

oh, because you just did murder...not crime..and because (obvious) your post are inept.

Lets dumb it down for ya:
2019 CRIME rates per 100k, top 5 cities in US:

1 St. Louis Missouri 2,082.3 - Democrat Mayor
2 Detroit Michigan 2,056.7 - Democrat Mayor
3 Baltimore Maryland 2,027.0 - Democrat Mayor
4 Memphis Tennessee 2,003.3 - Democrat Mayor
...
rube

Fact check: Big cities have crime and more Democrats, but it's a stretch to link them

Mouth breather, correlation and causation is something most of us learned in high school. I recommend you try to finish.

Again.
1.the claim was Democrat cities= highest crime rates.

to which you responded

2. "ha! republican cities are top 2 with murder"

for which i clarified

3. "actually, top crime rates was subject, and indeed they all have Democrat mayors, a.k.a. Democrat cities".
...
which led you to suddenly backtrack to violence...not crime..but violence as being irrelevant of Democrat/rep.
...
and then you parrot what you have heard grown ups say, but nobody except Ajax was doing that.
..until you did it in response.
...but then you did it wrong.
...so now you just claim you were right the whole time.
...
good times.
...
rube.

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 11, 2020 4:23 pm

Structural racisim is one of those topics that require me to spend time thinking about how to think about it. It seems perfectly obvious to me that rules that appear neutral on their face can have a discriminatory impact in practice. To me, that's the classic example of how a structure can be racist even though none of the individuals that design, implement, participate in, or benefit from the structure intend the structure to be discriminatory. The law has recognized this for years, acknowledging that both de jure and de facto discrimination exist.

What this tells me is that, when thinking about racisim, it is not enough to discuss rules and principles in a vacuum -- everything must be placed in context. And that context is the structure.

To me, that's where 99% of race discussions among white folks -- especially white men -- that I've observed miss the boat. They are limited to discussing abstract principles in a vacuum in an attempt to create rules that are "fair for everyone." But what appears fair in a vacuum may be deeply unfair depending on the structure that the rule is embedded in. That fact is never considered, and the the white folks go on their merry way, patting themselves on the back that they've "solved" racism. It's a kind of willful blindness. And it functions to allow racist structures to persist in society.

You said it better than I could.

Icarus wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 12, 2020 12:05 am

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 11, 2020 4:23 pm

Structural racisim is one of those topics that require me to spend time thinking about how to think about it. It seems perfectly obvious to me that rules that appear neutral on their face can have a discriminatory impact in practice. To me, that's the classic example of how a structure can be racist even though none of the individuals that design, implement, participate in, or benefit from the structure intend the structure to be discriminatory. The law has recognized this for years, acknowledging that both de jure and de facto discrimination exist.

What this tells me is that, when thinking about racisim, it is not enough to discuss rules and principles in a vacuum -- everything must be placed in context. And that context is the structure.

To me, that's where 99% of race discussions among white folks -- especially white men -- that I've observed miss the boat. They are limited to discussing abstract principles in a vacuum in an attempt to create rules that are "fair for everyone." But what appears fair in a vacuum may be deeply unfair depending on the structure that the rule is embedded in. That fact is never considered, and the the white folks go on their merry way, patting themselves on the back that they've "solved" racism. It's a kind of willful blindness. And it functions to allow racist structures to persist in society.

You said it better than I could.

Thanks. That's just one piece of a bunch of fragmentary lines of thought that come into play when I try to think about how I should think about racisim. Here's another. The more I read about human thinking, the more convinced I am that my opinions, evaluations and judgments are largely the products of brain processes of which the part of my brain that is "me" is unaware. The many priming studies I've read and read about have me pretty convinced of that. And if that's so, then I have to admit that I have no idea whatsoever how a person's race affects how I think about them and treat them. That means I have no idea whether I have negative biases toward POC or whether they lead me to act in discriminatory ways based on race.

Sure, the "me" part of my brain will back-rationalize anything I say or do so that it can convince itself that it is not racist. After all, it operates off of a very simple and powerful syllogism: 1. Racisim is something bad people do. 2. I am not a bad person. 3. Therefore, I am not racist. And because I am not a racist, if someone points out something I say or do as racist, the most important thing for the me part of my brain is to defend itself by rationalizing whatever it was I said or did as not racist.

So, I think that part of how to think about racism is to reject the first premise of the syllogism, admit that I don't know the extent my own prejudices with respect to race, and face the fact that the part of my brain that tells me I'm not racist is an extremely biased judge.

The only bias is the foreordained conclusion that .racism must be found even when it doesn't exist. Does anyone else find it odd that the most violent and unreasonable protests are not down south in red states but on the left coast.

ajax18 wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 12, 2020 11:27 pm

The only bias is the foreordained conclusion that .racism must be found even when it doesn't exist. Does anyone else find it odd that the most violent and unreasonable protests are not down south in red states but on the left coast.

That isn't a foregone conclusion. It is the conclusion deduced from actual facts. That a notorious Nazi would argue racism doesn't exist isn't really surprising.

So will Res Ipsa and Icarus admit on this thread they’re racists?

- Doc

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 12, 2020 11:34 pm

So will Res Ipsa and Icarus admit on this thread they’re racists?

- Doc

I'm still waiting for you to answer the question. How many dead black people before you're willing to say those deaths outweigh the costs of $500 million in property damage?

I never understood why it is so important for some people to fight against acknowledging the established facts of structural racism. Maybe you can explain why you're so vested in it being false.

That isn't a foregone conclusion. It is the conclusion deduced from actual facts. That a notorious Nazi would argue racism doesn't exist isn't really surprising.

Does it surprise you that this police brutality is happening in Democrat run cities and states rather than rural red areas where all the supposed hard core racists live? If you're going to use where the protests are the most prolonged, disruptive, and violent as a barometer, than Res Ipsa must be much more racist than I am.

So, I see Icarus isn‘t going to admit he’s a racist. Here’s his chance to set the example for the board, to lead the way.

- Doc