Putting a face on systemic racism.

Interesting theory. That would mean that people tend to vote Republican BECAUSE of lack of education. I'm not endorsing the theory, but it's worth considering.

Poverty DOES make it harder to obtain an education. You bring up another factor that might or might not be related: their party preference. So you're saying lack of education and tendency to vote Republican go together... hmmm...

BTW, household income is ANOTHER question in college application forms. Poorer families also get preferential treatment when they apply to most (all?) universities. And lower rates, of course. Not to mention grants and easy access to credit. And, if they're lucky, they get a President like Biden who WAVES education debt when even THAT becomes a burden. And it benefits poor inhabitants in red states just the same as those in blue states. They just need to apply!

However, there is another factor in red states: Republicans tend to DEMONIZE education. So that also might factor into their poverty and lack of education.

 

That makes no sense. If you agree the system treats people differently based on their "race", then changing that IMPLIES that the new way they are treated will be different from what it is now. We don't want to CHANGE how white people are treated in the system. That part of the system is working fine. What is not working fine is how the system treats black people.

There is no third alternative. You either change how the system treats black people, or you don't. By DEFINITION that implies treating people differently than how they are treated now based on their race.

I don't know what you've been told this is about. But whatever it is is WRONG! Businesses SHOULD hire the best and the brightest. Nobody is asking them to change that. What we are asking them is to LOOK at the resumes of Jamal and Lakisha to see if they are among the best and the brightest. As the OP demonstrates, they aren't even LOOKING.

 

The system that the poster I responded to described. If you want to know what that is, ask THEM. I understand what that poster is referring to. But if you have any questions for him/her, I'm sure they can answer them. Don't be discouraged by the fact that he's a right winger like you are.

 

So you can't explain it (because its a FAKE concept)
Thanks for proving my point.....again! (I really appreciate it)

 

Why would I want to explain what another poster meant? He/she is here! Why are you hesitant to ask them directly what they meant? Is there some sort of "penalty" on the right for questioning your own side?

MY explanation is here
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...what-it-means-and-what-it-doesnt-mean.587769/

Feel free to comment or ask any questions about MY explanation THERE. Or you can ask your question about that here, and I can move it there. Whatever you prefer.

 

Looking at skin color as a determination of ANYTHING is racist. Whether you want to admit it or not.

Just stop. Just because I disagree with you on what racism is does not mean I'm not educated in it. I know what you think it is. I know what many leftist identitarians think it is. I know what they think represents racism and what doesn't. So just stop with the pedantic replies.

Now, are you going to give what system you would replace the US system with in exact detail or not? One that does NOT include skin color. Where skin color is not determinative of ANYTHING. Because that is the goal. To make skin color irrelevant.

 

I already gave a fool proof system. THEY DON'T CARE
As I said they NEED the illusion of systemic racism to keep their black pets in check and keep them voting blue
Notice how they completely ignore any proposed solutions
Without racism the left has NOTHING

 

First off, no one is starving, since if you're fat, you're not hungry. That's science kiddo! People in Africa are starving. Here? Oh please. And why is this a systemic black problem? There are LOADS of poor white people too who fall into this same cycles. LOADS!!! NO ONE FORCES THEM TO HAVE CHILDREN or parents not to give a crap! Why are black people far more violent? That's not a racism thing. Its a culture thing. Explain why many black people who get out and get wealthy, fall right back into it? Its CULTURE!!! NOT racism.

The WE you're talking about is THEM!!! Unless you're black, so the WE is YOU. The WE is black people. Black leaders. THEY need to break the cycle, because WHITE people can't force black people NOT to have kids, unless you want to call Leftists pushing abortion on them, hehe. So as usual, any racism you're "finding" is DEMOCRATS!!! Democrats thinking Black people are too helpless to act on their urges, etc. You're showing everyone here the racism is in YOU. You don't think black people can help themselves, so its up to white people to tell them what to do, because after generations, they just can't manage to just stop having kids with 3-4 people, can they=) They just can't stop killing each other eh? They just can't stop attacking white people at disproportionate numbers?

WE as in white people, give them every possible opportunity to succeed. Endless resources. 100s of Billions over the years "helping". The problem, is WE, white people can't help THEM. THEY have to help THEMSELVES. Like AA, the first thing in solving your alcoholism is admitting its YOU, not anyone else. But its so hard to buy votes when you tell them the REAL problem.

 

Sometimes... but we're not talking about that type of racism. We're talking about systemic racism.

One in which everybody has the same opportunity to get a job whether their name is Michael or Jamar. The OP shows evidence that we are not there yet.

I don't know that this is "replacing" the system. Just making it better.

Here is the problem: the right has been feeding their "flock" with WRONG information about what CRT is, about how Affirmative Action works... all those things. NOBODY is looking to give anybody preference for being black. As I said before, all we want is to equalize the chance that they'll call Lakisha for an interview just as readily as they would call Jane. If it turns out that Jane is more qualified, power to her. The manager would be stupid not to hire her. But at least Lakisha got a shot at an interview....

THAT is what the OP shows.

 

Of course not! At least not in a Biden economy with under 4% unemployment for two years! But even in this great economy, you can't study and not die of hunger at the same time. What you just discovered is that most people choose not dying...

Of course it's culture! It's a culture that they have inherited since the years of slavery and Jim Crowe. But culture doesn't change by just WANTING it to change. Education is needed. That's the point!

Yep! Like Affirmative Action. The right wants to END giving them those opportunities.

Though it's not "we" as in "white people". It's "we" as in people.

 

You completely missed the point.

You pulled out a study. You chose to focus on black applicants.

How was "black" defined. Do you know?

Did the discrimination occur simply based on reading the applicant's name or making a physical contact to see their physical appearance? If its solely based on physical appearance, was the person discriminated against "Black" or brown, mixed, Latino, dark skinned Caucasian, Arab, and so on.

The term "black" means what? Do you even know? Does it mean only African descended Americans or does it mean anyone with dark skin or does it mean someone with very light skin but large lips, a specific nose structure, hair texture, how they dressed, whether they spoke with an accent, were also disabled, old, over-weight?

Your knee jerk response to me shows you have a preconceived perception that discrimination against "blacks" is the most common because you will read that into things.

However the point and you totally missed it, is that its quite possible what you interpret as anti black discrimination might be someone or people who do not like VISIBLE minorities or ethnic groups but its the ethnicity not the skin colour they discriminate against.

I represented many people on both sides of human rights cases. The perception of bias was subjective and often assumed for the wrong reasons.

I do not deny in the US there is a focus on black discrimination because it deeply relates to slavery of blacks in the US.

My point though is other minority groups like Latinos, indigenous peoples, Asians and some pale to dark skinned minority groups like Jews, Irish, Italian, East European,, they too underwent or undergo discrimination. That was my point. No one is arguing that discrimination against blacks exists.

If you want to argue it is the most "important" or "prevalent" type of racism that is not my intent. My point is that unintentionally if you only focus your concern on how discrimination impacts on blacks you run the risk of alienating other discriminated against minority groups and you sure as hell will make it easier for certain racist groups to divide minority groups against one another.

Racism, discrimination against someone's physical appearance, is not limited to tone of skin. That is the point and when you hyper focus on skin colour of "blacks" you are not necessarily helping you may be fueling resentment for not making it clear that any or all discrimination against anyone because of their physical appearance is problematic. It is in that greater context, you attract other minorities as allies to help you explain and find ways to deal with anything unfair in a common strategy.

I am a visible minority. If I wear a Yamacha or people read my last name they know I am a Jew. I was teaching at a college and the Muslim dean in her hijab asked me my stand on Gaza and fired me when I would not respond. No grounds. That same woman was granting interviews about how Canada is unfair to immigrants. So what do you want my perspective to be?

I have experienced blatant anti Jewish sentiment by specific people of all colours and ethnicities as a result of everytime there is a flare up in the Middle East. I am sure visible Muslims do too. In fact I know so. You think we feel its not as important as other forms of hatred?

****. As a Jew I identify with gays. They too have a collective identity. Their identity was created from a shared sense of social rejection. In the case of we Jews, we created a country as a last existential stand against discrimination. For gays, they have chosen not a distinct state but to form mini states in the greater communities. Their strategy like ours was and is to use humour, art, music, business to try create positive environments for everyone. I identify with discrimination they get. I don't claim to be gay but I claim to understand why they have a collective identity and like we Jews can not be stereotyped as we range in every skin colour and variation but are still discriminated against. For minorities like we too, that discrimination will be expressed in many forms and could include race, ethnicity, physical appearance, on and on.

In Canada blacks can be some of the oldest Canadians, The older black Canadians suffered a different kind of discrimination then say other black people who came from he West Indies or Africa. Blacks in Canada often hate it when anyone slaps the name or black before their Canadian with a hyphen.

Blacks, Jews, Irish, Ukrainians, Italians, Asian peoples (Japanese, Vietnamese, Chinese, Phillipinos and so on)disabled people, we have all been through the discrimination after we came. Indigenous people who are the native Canadians of course they felt discrimination and still feel it. So. Do you want me to rank whose discrimination is or has been the worst?

As a Canadian when I look at you Americans I do see certain people quick to focus on the discrimination of their minority and in dialogue exclude other minorities. That is what I challenge. I think it feeds into bigots like Trump who then can say appeal to minorities to hate other minorities arguing see Black Lives Matters only cares about blacks they are the bigots not me, blacks love me.

For me as a minority but pale skinned, I do understand why you use it as a term when discussing discrimination. For me I move past that skin tone to segregate it from the other forms of discrimination.

I believe that minorities must reach out to each other not segregate, form mutual support net works and then appeal to everyone and not create terms like "white privilege" which necessarily creates a stereotype of whites that necessarily causes resentment.

"Privilege" is a word someone who envies uses. Envy won't make someone achieve a damn thing but bitterness and self defeating prophecy of not being as privileged.

Privilege is a state of mind. I spent 7 years in a school where I was told I killed Jesus and would never have the privilege of going to heaven if I did not convert and told I deserve all bad things until I repented.

Not going to heaven? Right. When they read Shylock out or Fagan, I had to play the part and the teacher would say use "your" accent and they would laugh.

Time and place. If I played hockey or baseball or football, whether someone was *****, black, other, they would all all me dirty Jew. Then I had to fight. Then once the fight was over, the very person calling me the derogatory friend now was my friend. We did not feel privileged. We wanted to see if we had the same values of pride, dignity. As I grew I realized that.

So me don't ask me to use black and white. The only colour in common is the colour red and it is absolutely stupid to have to kill or injure someone to see that common colour.

 

It wasn't. That's the point! It's based on the PERCEPTION that somebody named Jane is most likely white, and somebody named Lakisha is probably black. That's what the study is about.

As I understand it, it was solely on reading the applicant's name.

 

No it doesn't

 

The OP doesn't show evidence of that. They claim it does but it assumes too much for it to actually be proof of anything. Did they contact the employer for a follow up? No? Then they only assume its because of a "black sounding name" vs a "white sounding name". For all they know the position was filled before the HR department even saw the applications. Hell, did the companies even get all of the applications? Those doing the study don't know. USPS delivers 421.4 million packages per day, and its estimated that they lose about 4% of their mail which is not included in the delivered category. But at 421.4 packages daily you can bet that lost mail is substantial. Additionally, a lot of companies these days will look up social media of people applying for a job in order to get an idea of what the person is like before contacting them. No online presence? No contact. Online presence? Maybe a contact. If they like what they see.

Point is that there are so many variables that the "study" doesn't take into account that its practically worthless. Its made up of assumptions, which makes it worth less than nothing. Its confirmation bias by those LOOKING to get published to make a name for themselves.

 

They didn't even use stereotypically white names. They should have used names like Cletus, Billy Bob, Duke, ect...

 

The next time you feel the impulse to write a rambling diatribe you would do well to familiarize yourself with the subject.

 

The OP is not intended to be "proof" of anything. It's intended to be one piece of EVIDENCE. The rest of your post shows that you are confused about the difference. "Evidence" means that it's an objective indicator that something is happening. I would define "proof" as the accumulation of evidence to the point that it would be foolish to deny it.

The fact that employers tend to call people whose name they perceive as "white" is only one piece of the puzzle. If you want "proof" that there is systemic racism, you add this fact to others.

There are so many variables that NO study could possibly take them all into account. So each study attempts to isolate ONE of these variables. Not understanding this means you don't understand how complex issues (ANY complex issue) that have to do with social interaction are studied. THIS study isolates the "perception" variable I outlined. The overall fact that systemic racism exists is proven by this PLUS hundreds of studies like this, each one of which addresses one indicator. If they ALL point in the same direction, it would be foolish to deny that systemic racism exists. And, guess what... they all DO.

 

I hope whoever is pushing this DEI GARBAGE ends up with DEI surgeons in their twilight years. You brought it on YO-SELVES!

 

We DO want to bring upon ourselves diversity, equity and inclusion. "We" does not include bigots and white supremacists, of course. But just about everybody else would find that's a good thing.

 

Funny how you focus on one word to the exclusion of all else. I don't care how you define it. I go by the dictionary.



Which means I used it properly. Your whole post is nothing more than a pedantic evasion at the fact that you can't argue the actual points made. This study couldn't even properly establish ONE point.

 

Equity is not possible no matter how much you think it is.

 

Any system that gives preferential or deferential treatment to people based on race is systemic racism, defined. It's really simple.

Businesses should make hiring and firing decisions based on any methodogy they see fit. If they miss out on the best and brightest because they are racists, then the market will punish them, and their competitors will benefit.

 

I'm not focusing on ANY word. I'm just explaining to you that this was NOT intended as proof, but simply as evidence. And then I explained what I mean. "Evidence" helps show something. While "proof" is the word you would use when it's established unequivocally. The OP has no intention to prove anything. It's intended as evidence.

Anyway.... that was the point. If you want to understand the thread, that's all you need to know. If you don't, then it makes no difference.

 

What nonsense. Of course it is! If I give a hungry black person and a hungry white person each half of my orange, I have achieved equity in sharing that orange.

If I give a hungry white person all my orange, and none to the black guy who just ate one, I am also obtaining equity.

Your statement, like so many of your statements, has no real-world value.

 

Exactly! And we can either try to solve the problem by doing what we can. Or we perpetuate the problem by not doing anything about it.

I don't know what you're talking about. Who says they can't?

You appear to have something in your mind, but you clearly have problem expressing it. How a business chooses to make hiring and firing decisions is, has always been, and will always be up to the business. So long as they're legal (jobs for which you can't hire a minor, for example)

If they miss out on the best and the brightest, they are incompetent.... PERIOD. That has nothing to do with racism.

You appear to be trying to force racism into something that has NOTHING to do... even with this discussion.