Quote :

"The implication isn't that they should "never" talk, but the ones in a discussion with privilege, by definition, have had more than their/our fair share of talking, which is part of the problem."

Even from the social justice warrior perspective, this is just wrong. Screen names are not black or white, with an obvious exception of BlackJesus. Even with that guy, I don't 100% believe he's black.

You're saying that there is a factor more important than the strength of the argument. That's wrong. It's not just a little wrong, it's completely wrong. It's as wrong as wrong can be.

5/28/2014 10:29:01 AM

lol@at thinking that arguments should stand and fall on the strength of their merits. Silly privilieged cis-gendered racio-normative man.

5/28/2014 10:47:07 AM

but.. but... privilege is bad

5/28/2014 12:50:04 PM

^^ lol you joking?

Any argument based on the perspective of one side is going to be inherently weak, that's the point, but systemic biases tend to ignore this weakness.

In honor of Maya Angelous passing, here's a great interview she did with Dave chapelle.
http://youtu.be/QaCgtNKqb7E

^ ha no one is saying privilege is inherently bad or good, it just "is".

I think I now see why people can't get systemic racism, it's just you can't overcome your defensive reflexes. Interesting.

[Edited on May 28, 2014 at 3:36 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on May 28, 2014 at 3:37 PM. Reason : ]

5/28/2014 3:34:52 PM

i don't think pointing out that people in positions of privilege can still offer insight and participate in the conversation is being defensive or reactionary.

5/28/2014 3:46:37 PM

^^teach us, oh enlightened one. We are so very stupid and ignorant.

It just irks me that someone could find this line of reasoning compelling. Clearly people that disagree with me must have some fatal mental flaw.

[Edited on May 28, 2014 at 3:53 PM. Reason : .]

5/28/2014 3:52:56 PM

It's not that I'm being defensive or that I don't understand. It's that I don't give a shit.

5/28/2014 4:39:13 PM

^^,^ you're really proving his point here. and i always think it's hilarious when people decide to post in a thread about how they don't care about a topic.

5/28/2014 8:49:31 PM

^^^ I find that statement highly ironic, coming from you.

5/28/2014 11:45:34 PM

^^^ by not giving a shit, in cases of discrimination, you are often part of the problem.

^^^^ huh? You seem to have a major chip on your shoulder about this topic, i can't really help you with that.

^^^^^ It was never suggested people with a privilege can't contribute to a discussion.

5/29/2014 2:28:37 AM

Quote :

"^^^ I find that statement highly ironic, coming from you."

I don't think that's a fair characterization of when I use evidence and reason to counter silly religious beliefs, but whatever. I don't just write the religious off because reasons. I provide those reasons.

5/29/2014 8:59:28 AM

Quote :

"you're really proving his point here. and i always think it's hilarious when people decide to post in a thread about how they don't care about a topic."

So I now have to care about something to point out bad arguments/assumptions being made about said topic? This is after I've been told I can't participate in the discussion because of my status in life, I'm just supposed to keep my mouth shut and listen?

And I'm being ridiculous?

5/29/2014 10:49:57 AM

Systemic:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/06/03/study-finds-strong-evidence-for-discriminatory-intent-behind-voter-id-laws/


Not systemic:
http://www.complex.com/city-guide/2014/06/two-black-men-discrimination-tennessee-cotton-warehouse
Two Black Men Experience Appalling Discrimination While Working at Tennessee Cotton Warehouse

6/4/2014 3:39:56 PM

systemic: http://m.vice.com/read/south-koreas-not-so-subtle-racist-hiring-practices-0000313-v21n5?utm_source=vicefbus

Quote :

"lawmakers drafted anti-discrimination legislation in February 2013 that would have prohibited employers from discriminating against applicants based on ethnicity, skin color, age, sexual orientation, and other factors. But the bill faced heavy opposition from corporations and conservative Christian groups, who attacked it as pro–North Korean and pro-gay, and was killed in April."

Not Systemic: http://www.complex.com/tech/2014/06/racist-woman

6/5/2014 2:07:30 PM

Systemic: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/how-economic-scarcity-affects-perceptions-of-race/372438/?google_editors_picks=true

Probably not systemic: https://wvrecord.com/news/267669-man-accuses-roofing-company-workers-of-racism

iPad is being weird os can't paste relevant quote, but you get the gist from the urls

6/9/2014 11:45:23 PM

It appears to me that you could just replace the word systemic with "aggregate." I don't understand the point of distinguishing between the two.

6/10/2014 8:30:26 AM

This is terrible.

Every American should see this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/14/media-black-victims_n_5673291.html

8/17/2014 10:24:40 PM

^^
(i had a longer/clearer explanation typed out but then i accidentally cleared it)

Because it doesn't take any individual to be racist to give their family/friends a boost in hiring or passing their application along (for anything), but this results in the suppression of minorities because a minority is less likely to be in a position of power (due to their parents/grandparents not being able to go to school/vote/buy good land/property /get elected to public office/or otherwise be respected -- which creates a cycle).

It doesn't take any individual to be racist to be more on guard in a poor-black neighborhood, because poverty is associated with increased assaults and property crimes, but poverty is also associated with being a minority, due to the above effect (and other issues). But this causes several issues, including the over-policing that causes blacks to be scooped up disproportionately for crimes that other demographics commit at similar rates. It's a racism built into the system, not born from any single modern-day individual being racist (however, was due to individuals in the past being racist).

It relates to this article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/08/black-people-are-not-ignoring-black-on-black-crime/378629/

Where the author says:

Quote :

"It is not "black on black crime" that is background noise in America, but the pleas of black people."

This is a very true statement. When people talk about inequality, equal opportunity, early childhood education, helping adults get an education, minimum wage reform, fixing the rampant sentencing and policing problems in the justice system, even housing and mortgage fairness, these are all ways of affecting the poverty driving a lot of the black-on-black crime, the politicians on the right paint as socialism or reverse-racism, and politicians on the left weakly support and are unable to articulate the value. Black on black crime is a societal problem, but because the majority group that holds political power, it gets reframed as a problem with the black community. Black people are part of our society too, they are as American as the rest of us. Paying attention to this aspect of our society will help our entire society.

[Edited on August 18, 2014 at 1:27 AM. Reason : ]

8/18/2014 1:26:50 AM

So it's not poverty that's the problem, it's race. But it's race because poverty because race in the past?

I think it's poverty *AND* race, I just don't see the utility of labeling it 'systemic'.

Quote :

"Black people are part of our society too, they are as American as the rest of us. Paying attention to this aspect of our society will help our entire society. "

I'm not certain anyone could argue otherwise, but what should we do differently for poor black people vs poor latino people vs poor white people? Is the answer "normalize the percentage chance for a person to be born poor by race" or "make less poor people"?

[Edited on August 18, 2014 at 4:17 PM. Reason : .]

8/18/2014 3:58:32 PM

Quote :

"So it's not poverty that's the problem, it's race. But it's race because poverty because race in the past? I think it's poverty *AND* race, I just don't see the utility of labeling it 'systemic'."

The "systemic" is there to point out to people that it's not a matter of an individual being racist, it's how our society (and most societies) works. It's there to make people realize that they are not being called a racist; the point isn't that white people are naturally just racist assholes, the point is that the way our governing structures work tend to create favoritism for a majority group, that itself then breeds more favoritism. And this system doesn't just apply to racial demographics, it applies to most human groups where there is an entrenched majority-minority relationship (for example male/females, gays/straights, attractive ppl vs ugly people, etc.).

Poverty and race are 2 separate issues, but are related. I think of it as an elaborate network with many feedback loops and other cyclical effects.

You can talk about race without necessarily talking about the broader issue of poverty. Because societies are transient, they don't really reach steady states, merely addressing poverty wouldn't be enough to address the legacy of brutal racism by our society/government.

Quote :

"but what should we do differently for poor black people vs poor latino people vs poor white people? Is the answer "normalize the percentage chance for a person to be born poor by race" or "make less poor people"?"

The answer is to understand why each demographic is poor, and to address those causes. For poor white people, the causes tend to be mental health issues and education and jobs. For poor latinos, the problem tends to just be education since their second generations tend to fare better especially if they look white (like all immigrant populations in the past really). For poor blacks, it's difficulty finding jobs, and the instability of an unfair justice system, 2 things strongly linked with racism (both systemic and interpersonal).

So you can't really say it's just "poverty" because the causes of poverty vary from region to region, and for some areas, it's racism in the past and present that feeds the cycle of poverty.

8/18/2014 4:35:24 PM

I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Racism ended in 1964 and sexism ended in 1920, look it up!!!!!!*

[Edited on August 18, 2014 at 5:48 PM. Reason : *this is what Republicans actually believe]

8/18/2014 5:47:23 PM

So today on ABC11 I saw this story:

BROOKLYN MOM SPARKS CONTROVERSY BY LETTING 7-YEAR-OLD STAY HOME ALONE
http://abc11.com/family/mom-sparks-controversy-by-letting-7-year-old-stay-home-alone/269180/

It's about a white mommy-blogger who has "sparked debate" by leaving her 7 year old home alone for short periods of time.

the story made me remember another recent story, except this one had a different ending
Mom arrested for leaving 9-year-old alone at park
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/21/living/mom-arrested-left-girl-park-parents/

8/18/2014 9:08:06 PM

Has anyone actually demonstrated examples of systemic racism in this thread? Or is it just posting examples of how people will continue to be racists...for fucking ever...and calling it a feature of the (US) system?

8/18/2014 9:21:17 PM

cuntpuncher

8/18/2014 9:29:21 PM

Probably the most intelligent thing you've posted in weeks. Sadly.

8/18/2014 9:55:22 PM

classic CuntPunter

8/19/2014 8:01:45 AM

what do you guys think of this:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/21-things-you-cant-do-while-black

8/22/2014 2:38:03 AM

^ pretty sad. No justice, no peace.

8/22/2014 2:57:40 AM

ah motherjones, one of the foremost enablers of liberal snark

too bad that is one of their better pieces, but its still garbage because it came from them (the purveyors of fine garbage).

such a shame-

8/22/2014 3:34:34 PM

Quote :

"So today on ABC11 I saw this story: BROOKLYN MOM SPARKS CONTROVERSY BY LETTING 7-YEAR-OLD STAY HOME ALONE http://abc11.com/family/mom-sparks-controversy-by-letting-7-year-old-stay-home-alone/269180/ It's about a white mommy-blogger who has "sparked debate" by leaving her 7 year old home alone for short periods of time. the story made me remember another recent story, except this one had a different ending Mom arrested for leaving 9-year-old alone at park http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/21/living/mom-arrested-left-girl-park-parents/"

honestly do you not see a difference between leaving a kid at home vs a park? they're both terrible parents, IMO... but come on

8/22/2014 5:37:08 PM

Disgusting to the fucking core... ashamed of humanity after reading it

http://mic.com/articles/96690/here-s-what-happened-when-a-black-artist-played-dead-by-a-philly-landmark



Un-fucking-believable...

There are humans out there like that?

8/25/2014 5:09:40 AM

I have a hard time believing anyone in any of those pictures didn't know that guy was acting. I think the person who wrote this piece is full of shit.

Nearly anyone who has never seen a body would have been seriously disturbed and called the police.

[Edited on August 25, 2014 at 9:36 AM. Reason : .]

8/25/2014 9:22:05 AM

I dont think that is what OEP believes happened here; I think he is disgusted they didnt respect the symbolism.

Of course its debatable how stupid is he *shrug.*

8/25/2014 11:10:53 AM

I'll even go a bit further and say the picture takers were in on the gag. People will do anything for click-bait.

8/25/2014 12:31:34 PM

obama and holder should investigate

8/25/2014 12:33:23 PM

I personally would have still taken the picture, just to relish in the irony of the juxtaposition.

8/25/2014 1:02:42 PM

to me this looks like a hoax to me.

8/25/2014 1:31:00 PM

Yes, the outrage, how dare those people continue to take the pics they were there to take in the first place.

8/25/2014 3:03:58 PM

no one would even believe that they were in Philly without a pic there, they would have wasted all that time and money

8/25/2014 3:12:47 PM

I've got a picture of me under that statue. Fortunately there were no black people acting dead at the time it was taken.

The whole premise is just ridiculous. Nobody is going to act normal around a dead body, except maybe a mortician. I don't care what color you are.

8/25/2014 3:27:18 PM

Oh hell, rjrumfel and I are making the same point.

8/25/2014 7:36:50 PM

Pretty non-partisan point, but hey, we agree on something. Planets are aligning and whatnot. Armageddon is on its way. I wish politics didn't have to be so polarizing.

[Edited on August 25, 2014 at 7:53 PM. Reason : asda]

8/25/2014 7:52:35 PM

Quote :

"There were racial and ethnic differences, too: 25 percent of non-Hispanic whites said they had received an inheritance in 2007, but just 10 percent of African-Americans and 6 percent of Hispanics said the same."

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/a-dear-mona-follow-up-who-is-receiving-inheritances/

Not the most conclusive article, but i'm not sure how anyone can claim this effect isn't directly the result of racism and Jim Crow, originating before the pre-civil rights era.

8/26/2014 3:47:45 PM

my dead white grandfather didn't leave anything to my dad or to me.


note: it wasn't because he was white, it was because he was a cheating douche.

there's my anecdote of the day.

and come on dude, of course a higher % of whites will have a chance at an inheritance. the currently dying generation was from a time where racism was systematically legal. what's your real point? the "system" isn't what it was then. it still sucks, but racism is now a huge no no in the legal system, nearly to the point of being biased towards a minority.

[Edited on August 26, 2014 at 4:21 PM. Reason : ]

8/26/2014 4:18:34 PM

woosh

8/26/2014 4:28:36 PM

Quote :

"and come on dude, of course a higher % of whites will have a chance at an inheritance. the currently dying generation was from a time where racism was systematically legal. what's your real point? the "system" isn't what it was then. it still sucks, but racism is now a huge no no in the legal system, nearly to the point of being biased towards a minority. "

That IS the point... you don't see how it can have long-term cascading effects for 1 population to gain wealth, while another is practically prevented from doing so by the government? It's not like the current generation inherits wealth, and nothing happens. They use that wealth to start businesses, buy investments, etc. that they then use to gain more wealth, while transferring it down to their mostly homogenous offspring (although this is changing too).

The system isn't what is was then, but the effects of the system, as the inheritance data shows, very much are in effect today, in many ways.

Even if blacks had perfect equality in society and law, after slavery ended, there would still be systemic biases against them.

8/26/2014 4:34:10 PM

So what should we do about it? There already exists many programs for minorities enacted by people who apparently accept your thesis. Do we need more?

Should I be self-flagellating in white guilt or something?

8/26/2014 6:25:42 PM

Quote :

"woosh"

nope. see ^

8/26/2014 6:29:54 PM

no, your last paragraph makes it clear that went over your head

8/26/2014 6:31:26 PM

Quote :

"So what should we do about it?"

This is the only question that really matters. Don't give me any of this horseshit about "knowing is half the battle" either. What laws do you want passed, who do you want them to apply to, and how long do you want them to stay in effect?

8/26/2014 6:41:17 PM