BLM, or WLM? [MOD WARNING: FIRST POST]

Overheal

systemic racism
noun [ U ]
/sɪˌstem.ɪk ˈreɪ.sɪ.zəm/ /sɪˌstem.ɪk ˈreɪ.sɪ.zəm/

policies and practices that exist throughout a whole society or organization, and that result in and support a continued unfair advantage to some people and unfair or harmful treatment of others based on race:
We must address the racial inequities and systemic racism that exist in our criminal justice system.
There were frequent claims of sexual harassment, gender inequality, and systemic racism at the tech giant.
The group challenged government inaction, political hypocrisy, and systemic racism while offering peace to a grieving community.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/systemic-racism

Any objections to this definition, Cordell or Abuses Toilets, or shall we debate and agree upon another?

Cordell

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I think you'll find it fits well within the definition of systemic racism.

It's racism within the judicial system.

System being the important word.

Nope, something is not systemic simply by being inside a system. To be systemic it has to be designed in.

Racist policemen, judges, jury members don't make the judicial system systemically racist. Having laws and procedures designed to discriminate, that is what systemic racism means.

As interesting as this is, it's nowt to to with BLM.

Cordell

Overheal wrote: »

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/systemic-racism

Any objections to this definition, Cordell or Abuses Toilets, or shall we debate and agree upon another?

Yes, based on that definition, there has to be "policies and practices that exist throughout a whole society or organization". You haven't brought any proof of that, you have only shown proof of racist individuals.

Overheal

Cordell wrote: »

Nope, something is not systemic simply by being inside a system. To be systemic it has to be designed in.

Racist policemen, judges, jury members don't make the judicial system systemically racist. Having laws and procedures designed to discriminate, that is what systemic racism means.

And how are you defining Design, if not by the very laws and legal framework of the system in question? If your definition is narrowed to exclusively the mens rea of whomever drafted the law of the time, then, no, I find that insufficient IMHO. One, it's an impossible standard of evidence (eg. "What was on Joe Biden's mind on the day in 1994 when he sponsored the Crime Bill," only a God or himself would have known), two, it suggests that the lawmaker would have had to know what they knew to be true was wrong - in the 18th century, blacks were thought to be in the most 'modern' of clinical study, a subspecies of human with comparisons to animals not uncommon and even zookeeping of blacks not unheard of. So someone could easily write a law, or do a thing, believing at the time they were doing something in the better interests of 'the negro' (like taking them out of Africa, and giving them work to do as their chattel slave - what today's spin doctors would call a conservatorship) but that would not eliminate the fact that their thoughts and actions were themselves the result of racism. 'The zookeeper didn't think it was racist to keep blacks, therefore it wasn't' is a pretty meek argument, such as 'they didn't design it to be that way, therefore it wasn't.'

I can design a a bridge with the intention it can safely hold pedestrians, and have the best intentions, but that doesn't prove the bridge isn't inherently unsafe.

AbusesToilets

Overheal wrote: »

And how are you defining Design, if not by the very laws and legal framework of the system in question? If your definition is narrowed to exclusively the mens rea of whomever drafted the law of the time, then, no, I find that insufficient IMHO. One, it's an impossible standard of evidence (eg. "What was on Joe Biden's mind on the day in 1994 when he sponsored the Crime Bill," only a God or himself would have known), two, it suggests that the lawmaker would have had to know what they knew to be true was wrong - in the 18th century, blacks were thought to be in the most 'modern' of clinical study, a subspecies of human with comparisons to animals not uncommon and even zookeeping of blacks not unheard of. So someone could easily write a law, or do a thing, believing at the time they were doing something in the better interests of 'the negro' (like taking them out of Africa, and giving them work to do as their chattel slave - what today's spin doctors would call a conservatorship) but that would not eliminate the fact that their thoughts and actions were themselves the result of racism. 'The zookeeper didn't think it was racist to keep blacks, therefore it wasn't' is a pretty meek argument, such as 'they didn't design it to be that way, therefore it wasn't.'

I can design a a bridge with the intention it can safely hold pedestrians, and have the best intentions, but that doesn't prove the bridge isn't inherently unsafe.

Talking about all those laws specifically brought in to outlaw discrimination?

Overheal

Deleted User wrote: »

As interesting as this is, it's nowt to to with BLM.

When Moms for Liberty first came to Jacksonville, Florida, the nascent conservative parents’ group was talking about one of the issues that worried many parents during the coronavirus pandemic: mask mandates for kids.

But Quisha King, a mother of two who worked for the Republican National Committee and the Black Voices for Trump campaign in 2020, also wanted to address other concerns. The district was debating renaming certain local schools, including Robert E Lee high school, and King thought that the argument for making the change – that the name was damaging to Black students – was disrespectful of those students’ ability to succeed. King signed on as a co-chair of Moms for Liberty and began advocating against an ideology she had been reading up on: CRT.

Raised in a “staunchly Democrat” household, King experienced a change in perspective in 2017 that was part political, part spiritual, she said. She felt that the Black Lives Matter movement had little to say about Black victims of crime apart from those killed by police, and she began seeking out new sources of information, including Dr Thomas Sowell, a prominent Black conservative intellectual who argues that “systemic racism” is an untestable hypothesis and has compared it to Nazi propaganda. She read foundational CRT scholars, such as Kimberlé Crenshaw, Derrick Bell and Richard Delgado, but also Christian critics of CRT, including Neil Shenvi and Pastor Voddie Bauchman.

“I’m a person of faith, Christian, and I felt like God spoke to my heart,” she told the Guardian. “He said, ‘Your skin color has become an idol in your life and you’re seeing yourself through your skin color, and you’re not seeing yourself through Christ.’ That was really the moment for me that changed everything. I felt the shackles of all of those limiting thoughts. That’s why I fight so hard about these thoughts and these ideas being planted into kids’ minds because it is debilitating.”

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/jun/30/critical-race-theory-rightwing-social-media-viral-video

Some former officials immediately pushed back on the idea.

“Living the oath, ‘I swear to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic’ isn’t good enough?” Tony Thomas, the former commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, said in a tweet. “C’mon @SenTomCotton, stop politicizing the institution you used to be part of.”

Cotton and Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, are asking troops to tell them when they encounter training programs in the military centered around critical race theory, which seeks to understand how racism and discrimination permeate various legal and other societal systems. A memo from Cotton obtained by Defense One last month offered some two dozen examples, including troops who said they were offended by a Black Lives Matter flag hung on base and who expressed anger that training about extremist groups focused on right-wing organizations and not Black Lives Matter or Antifa.

Teaching about racism also came up at a contentious June 23 congressional hearing, where Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Mark Milley were grilled by Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., about a West Point seminar on “white rage.”

https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2021/07/lawmaker-wants-grill-officers-critical-race-theory-approving-promotions/182710/

In their book “Critical Race Theory: An Introduction,” Mr. Delgado and Jean Stefancic list several of its core premises, including the view that “racism is ordinary, not aberrational,” and that it “serves important purposes, both psychic and material, for the dominant group,” that is, for white people. In recent years, these ideas have entered the mainstream thanks to the advocacy of the Black Lives Matter movement, which was catalyzed by several high-profile cases of police violence against Black people, as well as the New York Times’s 1619 Project and bestselling books like Robin DiAngelo’s “White Fragility” and Ibram X. Kendi’s “How to Be an Antiracist.” Critical race theory also informs instruction at some schools and other institutions.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-godfather-of-critical-race-theory-11624627522


BLM and CRT have been inexorably tied, both during the 2020 protests last summer and recently the topic has resurged following the verdict in the Derek Chauvin trial, and over time (BLM is around since circa 2014/2015 i think).

Overheal

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Talking about all those laws specifically brought in to outlaw discrimination?

And I can design some extra tie rods and brackets into the bridge to patch, what I think, is a fix, for an unsafe bridge, but that still as a proof doesn't prove the bridge is not inherently unsafe. (or as in this topic that the system is not still inherently racist).

When the civil rights act was passed, it wasn't Narnia, discrimination didn't disappear overnight and it still continues in many documented respects to this day. The 13th amendment 'abolished' slavery (except as a form of punishment), but if that ended the racism, surely the civil rights act should have been moot. And on and on.


Do you agree with the definition of systemic racism I posted or would you like to proffer an alternative.

Overheal

Cordell wrote: »

Yes, based on that definition, there has to be "policies and practices that exist throughout a whole society or organization". You haven't brought any proof of that, you have only shown proof of racist individuals.

The laws applied exist throughout the whole society, Cordell. And if you agree with the definition then you already agree that I have demonstrated the criteria for the definition by demonstrating the results to you:

Cordell wrote: »

We're definitely not on the same page, the results were not racist, they were results, the algorithm was not proven racist and from what I'm seeing is not even actually used. I'm not a layman when it comes to algorithms and statistics, fwiw.

Maybe can you try harder to find some example of systemic racism that still happens today?

Yesterday you were arguing results aren't proof of systemic racism, but in the definition we're tacitly agreeing to here, those results are inexorable from the definition of systemic racism, and are QED proof that there is systemic racism in the US if the results are correspondingly racist.

AbusesToilets

Overheal wrote: »

And I can design some extra tie rods and brackets into the bridge to patch, what I think, is a fix, for an unsafe bridge, but that still as a proof doesn't prove the bridge is not inherently unsafe. (or as in this topic that the system is not still inherently racist).

When the civil rights act was passed, it wasn't Narnia, discrimination didn't disappear overnight and it still continues in many documented respects to this day. The 13th amendment 'abolished' slavery (except as a form of punishment), but if that ended the racism, surely the civil rights act should have been moot. And on and on.


Do you agree with the definition of systemic racism I posted or would you like to proffer an alternative.

The definition is whatever, that doesn't equate to it being in existence.

Overheal

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The definition is whatever, that doesn't equate to it being in existence.

No it's just a definition. But I've satisfied the criterion in this thread that the definition stipulated.

Cordell

Overheal wrote: »

in the 18th century

Let's live in the present and worry about the future. Nothing can be done about 18th century.

Overheal wrote: »

I can design a a bridge with the intention it can safely hold pedestrians, and have the best intentions, but that doesn't prove the bridge isn't inherently unsafe.

Right, but systemic unsafety will involve designs and procedures that are inherently unsafe.

Overheal

Cordell wrote: »

Nope, something is not systemic simply by being inside a system. To be systemic it has to be designed in.

Racist policemen, judges, jury members don't make the judicial system systemically racist. Having laws and procedures designed to discriminate, that is what systemic racism means.

If your criminal procedure is influenced by such racists, how can you say racism does not affect the whole? A racist on the Supreme Court of the United States, for instance, certainly has an undeniable influence upon the whole of the judicial system. I'd be interested to see any argument otherwise.

AbusesToilets

Overheal wrote: »

If your criminal procedure is influenced by such racists, how can you say racism does not affect the whole? A racist on the Supreme Court of the United States, for instance, certainly has an undeniable influence upon the whole of the judicial system. I'd be interested to see any argument otherwise.

Again, that's an individual action, not examples of the system being inherently discriminatory. There were times when that was the case in the past, red lining being a most obvious example. Something that we are still trying to fully rectify.

Cordell

Overheal wrote: »

Yesterday you were arguing results aren't proof of systemic racism, but in the definition we're tacitly agreeing to here, those results are inexorable from the definition of systemic racism, and are QED proof that there is systemic racism in the US if the results are correspondingly racist.

No, results don't really prove the system is racist by design.
We're both engineers, right? A system that gives poor results is either broken, or poorly designed. Only the later is a systemic fault.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

If your criminal procedure is influenced by such racists, how can you say racism does not affect the whole? A racist on the Supreme Court of the United States, for instance, certainly has an undeniable influence upon the whole of the judicial system. I'd be interested to see any argument otherwise.

Would the fact that a lot of BLM protesters broke laws and were released without charge, and the fact that prominent politicians actively publicly stood by them and actively encouraged them, not be an example of systemic racism?

Overheal

Cordell wrote: »

Let's live in the present and worry about the future. Nothing can be done about 18th century.



Right, but systemic unsafety will involve designs and procedures that are inherently unsafe.

Yes, I previously asked you to define your criteria, you have since declined.

If your timeframe is only "The present" and "the future" then how do you expect to be shown any argument of anything? Any proof of anything in our space-time existence requires time to produce: even a tweet of something that was just observed takes seconds to write, and academic studies of something as complex a system as the US, can be broad, and take years, and focus on countless scopes.

As I said before, I fully anticipated you would try to play this game of tennis. If you wish to dismiss what was said because it was the 18th century then at this point the onus is on you to define the time frame you would like to deem acceptable for the purposes of the discussion. You cannot simply cry fowl and change up the rules of the game, at a certain point you'll need to pull the finger out and engage in the discussion with an actual counter argument.

Overheal

Cordell wrote: »

Right, but systemic unsafety will involve designs and procedures that are inherently unsafe.

Right, and things which are inherently unsafe are not always revealed ahead of going live. So, it stands to reason for example that the Tacoma Narrows Bridge engineers were guilty of designing an inherently unsafe bridge, despite their best intentions to design a safe working bridge that would last the test of time, based on their state of the art.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-zczJXSxnw

Similarly, even laws and systems intentioned to weed out racism can, themselves, be racist, like the example given the other day in the critical analysis of pretrial algorithms.

Cordell

Overheal wrote: »

Yes, I previously asked you to define your criteria, you have since declined.

If your timeframe is only "The present" and "the future" then how do you expect to be shown any argument of anything? Any proof of anything in our space-time existence requires time to produce: even a tweet of something that was just observed takes seconds to write, and academic studies of something as complex a system as the US, can be broad, and take years, and focus on countless scopes.

As I said before, I fully anticipated you would try to play this game of tennis. If you wish to dismiss what was said because it was the 18th century then at this point the onus is on you to define the time frame you would like to deem acceptable for the purposes of the discussion. You cannot simply cry fowl and change up the rules of the game, at a certain point you'll need to pull the finger out and engage in the discussion with an actual counter argument.

Cordell wrote: »

Yet there is no proof that it's still happening today.

I think I made it quite clearly I'm only interested in the present. The past is in the past, nothing can be done to fix the past.

Overheal

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Again, that's an individual action, not examples of the system being inherently discriminatory. There were times when that was the case in the past, red lining being a most obvious example. Something that we are still trying to fully rectify.

so again,


systemic racism
noun [ U ]
/sɪˌstem.ɪk ˈreɪ.sɪ.zəm/ /sɪˌstem.ɪk ˈreɪ.sɪ.zəm/

policies and practices that exist throughout a whole society or organization [ie. US laws], and that result in [as we all agree it did] and support a continued unfair advantage to some people and unfair or harmful treatment of others based on race [which you've just conceded to].

Lads, it looks to me that based on the standards you've agreed with me on here, that I have been able to demonstrate systemic racism in the United States.

Overheal

Cordell wrote: »

I think I made it quite clearly I'm only interested in the present. The past is in the past, nothing can be done to fix the past.

So then any proof I provide you is worthless, since everything written in the past is the past. Even this post is the past by the time you're reading it.

You said you were an engineer. Try to act more rationally.

Even now, you are having to reference the past to argue you are only interested in the present.

Retr0gamer

Unfortunately when has evidence and proof gotten in the way of good old fashioned prejudice?

Cordell

Overheal wrote: »

Right, and things which are inherently unsafe are not always revealed ahead of going live. So, it stands to reason for example that the Tacoma Narrows Bridge engineers were guilty of designing an inherently unsafe bridge, despite their best intentions to design a safe working bridge that would last the test of time, based on their state of the art.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-zczJXSxnw

Similarly, even laws and systems intentioned to weed out racism can, themselves, be racist, like the example given the other day in the critical analysis of pretrial algorithms.

The proof that bridge suffered from systemic racism unsafety was obvious for anyone to see in the form of a big pile of rubble. That's a good standard of proof.

Overheal

Cordell wrote: »

The proof that bridge suffered from systemic racism unsafety was obvious for anyone to see in the form of a big pile of rubble. That's a good standard of proof.

Well, I've shown you a similar yet metaphorically big pile of rubble and you seemed to dismiss much of that as not being relevant enough to you, for nebulous reasons.

So is it a reasonable standard of proof or isn't it. (That bridge collapse is from 1940, so surely these more recent studies should be acceptable in this good standard of proof).

Cordell

Overheal wrote: »

Well, I've shown you a similar yet metaphorically big pile of rubble and you seemed to dismiss much of that as not being relevant enough to you, for nebulous reasons.

So is it a reasonable standard of proof or isn't it. (That bridge collapse is from 1940, so surely these more recent studies should be acceptable in this good standard of proof).

The pile of rubble you shown me was the result of some individuals taking a jackhammer to the bridge, not failures in the bridge itself.

Overheal

Cordell wrote: »

The pile of rubble you shown me was the result of some individuals taking a jackhammer to the bridge, not failures in the bridge itself.

No, I don't follow. More mealy mouthed and lazy dismissals.

biko

Black baby lives matter

https://twitter.com/TheSun/status/1412119084091645954?s=20

biko

biko wrote: »

Black baby live matter

https://twitter.com/TheSun/status/1412119084091645954?s=20

Lol

kildare lad

biko wrote: »

Black baby live matter

https://twitter.com/TheSun/status/1412119084091645954?s=20

What's going on? I thought police were trained to automatically open fire on black people when the see them ..

kildare lad

Busy weekend in Chicago , 92 people shot, 6 kids and 2 cops among the gun shot victims . One month old baby shot in the head along with another 6 people in a mass shooting . Any statement from lebron and planned protest from BLM or are they to busy , causing division, slating police and buying real estate

https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2021/7/3/22561910/chicago-weekend-shootings-july-2-5-homicide-gun-violence

In the deadliest and most violent weekend this year in Chicago, 92 people have been shot over the long Fourth of July weekend, 16 of them killed.
The 76 wounded include six children and teenagers and two Chicago police supervisors.

Both the number of fatal shootings and the number of shootings overall are highs for 2021, according to a Chicago Sun-Times database of shootings.

In one incident, two people were killed and four were wounded, including a 12-year-old girl and a 13-year-old boy, in a shooting early Monday in Washington Park on the South Side.

That happened around the same time that a 6-year-old girl and a woman were shot in West Pullman and about four hours after an 11-year-old boy and a man were shot in Brainerd on the South Side.

https://wgntv.com/news/chicagocrime/its-really-painful-1-month-old-child-among/

CHICAGO — A one-month-old child was among seven people shot Thursday night in the city’s Englewood neighborhood, preceding what many fear will be a violent weekend.

“It’s painful, it hurts. It’s really painful,” Charles McKenzie, the baby’s uncle said.

McKenzie got word just after 8:15 p.m. Thursday that his one-month-old niece Terriana Smith was shot in the head while strapped into her car seat near the intersection of 66th Street and Halsted Street in Englewood.
“Three individuals, one armed with an assault rifle, a weapon of war, got out of his vehicle and started firing indiscriminately in every direction,” Chicago police Superintendent David Brown said.

The gunmen got into a black Jeep Cherokee and fled eastbound on 66th Street. Other people wounded in the shooting included a 15-year-old boy and men ranging in age from 23 to 46.

“My heart dropped. I’m fighting every day, gun violence in our community and it home,” McKenzie said