Beamer wrote on Apr 19, 2019, 14:21:Scheherazade wrote on Apr 19, 2019, 10:08:
You're projecting. I'm not angry.
You are angry, though. Furthermore, "you're projecting" is the slightly more adult way of saying "I know you are, but what am I?" It serves the exact same function, only you feel slightly smarter about it, so it's again, about your emotions.
I am ideologically an individualist voluntaryist. I can only fault any person for their individual trespasses onto other individuals, on a case by case basis.
Intellectual cowardice.Your definition of institutional racism is created to satisfy a particular ideology which has no problem blaming the innocent. Precisely because when a person can't point fingers at any guilty party, they blanket blame society (i.e. everyone, guilty or innocent). It's the science of lashing out.
It is not lashing out. It's the opposite. But if there's a problem with society, all of society is at fault, because a solution requires all of society.
You don't seem to even acknowledge that things that are problems are going on, so this is pointless. "There is no problem, but if there was a problem, it's no one's fault" is, well, intellectual cowardice.
But it's funny how many people that refuse to assign any blame at all also refuse to see that there's a problem. It goes hand-in-hand.
Cowardly. True defense of status quo. This is how nothing ever improves, and why some people go "but this is how it's always been done."
Scheherazade wrote on Apr 19, 2019, 10:08:
You're projecting. I'm not angry.
I am ideologically an individualist voluntaryist. I can only fault any person for their individual trespasses onto other individuals, on a case by case basis.
Your definition of institutional racism is created to satisfy a particular ideology which has no problem blaming the innocent. Precisely because when a person can't point fingers at any guilty party, they blanket blame society (i.e. everyone, guilty or innocent). It's the science of lashing out.
Sepharo wrote on Apr 18, 2019, 12:59:Scheherazade wrote:
1968 ... 1943
You're missing the point again.
But like I said earlier it's pretty pointless for me to keep trying.
Beamer wrote on Apr 18, 2019, 09:19:
Listen, you're misunderstanding a concept, angry at the concept due to your own misunderstanding, and angry at us for explaining.
Here, from Wikipedia:
Institutional racism (also known as systemic racism) is a form of racism expressed in the practice of social and political institutions. It is reflected in disparities regarding wealth, income, criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power and education, among other factors.
The term "institutional racism" was coined and first used in 1967 by Stokely Carmichael (later known as Kwame Ture) and Charles V. Hamilton in Black Power: The Politics of Liberation.[1] Carmichael and Hamilton wrote that while individual racism is often identifiable because of its overt nature, institutional racism is less perceptible because of its "less overt, far more subtle" nature. Institutional racism "originates in the operation of established and respected forces in the society, and thus receives far less public condemnation than [individual racism]".[2] They gave examples.
"When white terrorists bomb a black church and kill five black children, that is an act of individual racism, widely deplored by most segments of the society. But when in that same city – Birmingham, Alabama – five hundred black babies die each year because of the lack of power, food, shelter and medical facilities, and thousands more are destroyed and maimed physically, emotionally and intellectually because of conditions of poverty and discrimination in the black community, that is a function of institutional racism. When a black family moves into a home in a white neighborhood and is stoned, burned or routed out, they are victims of an overt act of individual racism which most people will condemn. But it is institutional racism that keeps black people locked in dilapidated slum tenements, subject to the daily prey of exploitative slumlords, merchants, loan sharks and discriminatory real estate agents. The society either pretends it does not know of this latter situation, or is in fact incapable of doing anything meaningful about it."[3][4]
That's institutional racism. Your own definition differs, and this is a you problem, not a problem with the term or concept. You're like the people angry at "toxic masculinity" while constantly whining about being victim to it, all due to their fundamental refusal to accept the meaning of the term.
It's not worth discussing this with you if you refuse to accept even the basic definition of the term. It's like arguing with someone about whether the sky is blue, because they've decided to define blue as "yellow."
Sepharo wrote on Apr 18, 2019, 00:27:Scheherazade wrote on Apr 17, 2019, 23:35:
(I also made reference to a 'gangster aesthetic' - the visual appearance of a thug/gangster as established by popular media over the last few decades, re. music videos, movies, etc.)
I linked an image of Denzel Washington in the movie American Gangster. A product of popular media that has substantial influence on what someone would consider a "gangster" look.
He's dressed in a nice suit, and he's black.
Is that what you're going for? If you have a different description or example let's hear it.
I then linked an image of latino youths in LA during the Zoot Suit Riots. Those kids turned themselves over to police custody to avoid being beaten by rioting servicemen stationed in LA. The media indiscriminately characterized latino youths wearing these zoot suits as thugs and often praised the riots as a "cleansing". When Eleanor Roosevelt pointed out the obvious racial aspect to the attacks she was called a communist by the LA Times.There is a saying : If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.
I say you look like a "gangster" therefore you are one.
Scheherazade wrote on Apr 17, 2019, 23:35:
(I also made reference to a 'gangster aesthetic' - the visual appearance of a thug/gangster as established by popular media over the last few decades, re. music videos, movies, etc.)
There is a saying : If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.
Sepharo wrote on Apr 17, 2019, 23:12:Scheherazade wrote on Apr 17, 2019, 23:03:Sepharo wrote on Apr 17, 2019, 22:30:
https://i.imgur.com/0VcyjnU.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/C8Zs5yi.jpg
All sorts of people have done crimes and been in jail.
Clown
Suit
Judges/Police will still be harder on you if you come across as a "thug".
-scheherazade
You missed the point but explaining it to you would be pointless judging by your earlier nonsense.
Think about who defines the meaning of "thug" and "gangster", what it means in the context that it's being used.
Scheherazade wrote on Apr 17, 2019, 23:03:Sepharo wrote on Apr 17, 2019, 22:30:
https://i.imgur.com/0VcyjnU.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/C8Zs5yi.jpg
All sorts of people have done crimes and been in jail.
Clown
Suit
Judges/Police will still be harder on you if you come across as a "thug".
-scheherazade
Sepharo wrote on Apr 17, 2019, 22:30:
https://i.imgur.com/0VcyjnU.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/C8Zs5yi.jpg
Beamer wrote on Apr 17, 2019, 09:41:Scheherazade wrote on Apr 17, 2019, 02:22:Bodolza wrote on Apr 16, 2019, 15:02:Scheherazade wrote on Apr 16, 2019, 13:05:
- Black US persons since the ~80's haven't had institutional racism directed against them.
"Black male offenders received sentences on average 20.4 percent longer than similarly situated White male offenders...violence in an offender’s criminal history does not appear to contribute to the sentence imposed"
https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/demographic-differences-sentencing
That has nothing to do with institutional policy.
Nowhere will you find institutional regulations mandating 20.4% longer sentences for black people.
That's personal bias of persons responsible for sentencing.
I agree that they should get equal sentences for equal crimes.
Same goes for women, since women of all races apparently get let off easy, according to your link.
Frankly, sentencing should be reformed to only allow 1 charge per 1 action (no more stacking charges. One discrete action, one charge max.), and the sentence should be a fixed amount of time for a given offense. Also, sentences should be calculated a monetary value, and the time served should be capped at the value of the damages done in the initial offense (so the punishment does not exceed the crime). This would naturally mean that all crimes that are victimless (nobody for which to assess monetary damage) have zero length sentences.
Side note, Links to actual institutional policy : (quick google)
https://tenderspage.com/government-contracting-minority-owned/
https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-195R
https://www.upcounsel.com/woman-owned-business-tax-benefits
School wise, I assume everyone is aware of cases like Fisher v UT, and the Affirmative Action Harvard suit ("Asians" vs Harvard), where colleges assert that they aren't discriminating by using lower SAT thresholds [as a matter of policy] to admit Latino and Black students.
It's ironic for a minority to complain about institutional racism, given what the actual institutional policies are.
It seems like institutional racism has achieved a religion status. I don't know if there even is enough any institution can do to make people believe otherwise.
-scheherazade
p.s.
Care to address the rest of my earlier post? I'm genuinely curious what you think.
I don't think you understand the term "institutional racism." It doesn't refer solely to written policy. There's a social aspect to it. If you want evidence, just look at how black criminals are treated socially. You can't go one article on the internet without seeing the term "thug." You do not see that for white people, who, famously, are more likely to be referred to as "mentally disturbed."
This is institutional racism.
HoSpanky wrote on Apr 16, 2019, 09:04:
The girl in question isn’t American. Blackface wasn’t a thing in her country. Why is she responsible for knowing what might be offensive IN ANOTHER COUNTRY?
I guaran-fucking-tee everyone reading this has unknowingly done something that would be seen as offensive in another part of the world.
She wasn’t putting on makeup to mock anyone, it was done because that’s what color the character’s skin is. And IN HER COUNTRY, that’s not considered offensive.
The entire world isn’t the United States.
Scheherazade wrote on Apr 17, 2019, 02:22:Bodolza wrote on Apr 16, 2019, 15:02:Scheherazade wrote on Apr 16, 2019, 13:05:
- Black US persons since the ~80's haven't had institutional racism directed against them.
"Black male offenders received sentences on average 20.4 percent longer than similarly situated White male offenders...violence in an offender’s criminal history does not appear to contribute to the sentence imposed"
https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/demographic-differences-sentencing
That has nothing to do with institutional policy.
Nowhere will you find institutional regulations mandating 20.4% longer sentences for black people.
That's personal bias of persons responsible for sentencing.
I agree that they should get equal sentences for equal crimes.
Same goes for women, since women of all races apparently get let off easy, according to your link.
Frankly, sentencing should be reformed to only allow 1 charge per 1 action (no more stacking charges. One discrete action, one charge max.), and the sentence should be a fixed amount of time for a given offense. Also, sentences should be calculated a monetary value, and the time served should be capped at the value of the damages done in the initial offense (so the punishment does not exceed the crime). This would naturally mean that all crimes that are victimless (nobody for which to assess monetary damage) have zero length sentences.
Side note, Links to actual institutional policy : (quick google)
https://tenderspage.com/government-contracting-minority-owned/
https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-195R
https://www.upcounsel.com/woman-owned-business-tax-benefits
School wise, I assume everyone is aware of cases like Fisher v UT, and the Affirmative Action Harvard suit ("Asians" vs Harvard), where colleges assert that they aren't discriminating by using lower SAT thresholds [as a matter of policy] to admit Latino and Black students.
It's ironic for a minority to complain about institutional racism, given what the actual institutional policies are.
It seems like institutional racism has achieved a religion status. I don't know if there even is enough any institution can do to make people believe otherwise.
-scheherazade
p.s.
Care to address the rest of my earlier post? I'm genuinely curious what you think.
Bodolza wrote on Apr 16, 2019, 15:02:Scheherazade wrote on Apr 16, 2019, 13:05:
- Black US persons since the ~80's haven't had institutional racism directed against them.
"Black male offenders received sentences on average 20.4 percent longer than similarly situated White male offenders...violence in an offender’s criminal history does not appear to contribute to the sentence imposed"
https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/demographic-differences-sentencing
Sepharo wrote on Apr 16, 2019, 21:02:dittoBodolza wrote on Apr 16, 2019, 16:36:RedEye9 wrote on Apr 16, 2019, 15:56:
You're providing facts to a rock. It's a waste of time.
Oh, I know. But if we let lies like that stand unchallenged in an open forum, then someone else reading it might actually believe what he wrote. That's how these things spread.
Thank you.
Bodolza wrote on Apr 16, 2019, 16:36:RedEye9 wrote on Apr 16, 2019, 15:56:
You're providing facts to a rock. It's a waste of time.
Oh, I know. But if we let lies like that stand unchallenged in an open forum, then someone else reading it might actually believe what he wrote. That's how these things spread.
RedEye9 wrote on Apr 16, 2019, 15:56:
You're providing facts to a rock. It's a waste of time.