Does systemic racism exist in the US?

[Lord Thesaurian]

Ok, then what's your definition of systemic racism?

You dismiss redlining as systemically racist because others, not just black Americans, were affected by it. That doesn't disprove redlining was a racist tactic. Simply because some other races including even some whites were caught up in it, doesn't prove that redlining was not a racist practice. So that's why your interpretation is based on your opinion not evidence. For example, if people with political influence wants to ensure no blacks enter his neighborhood, they can institute a policy that prevents blacks from moving into that neighborhood. If the rules they erect happen to trap people of other races in their redlined zones, that doesn't negate it is, in fact, a systemic racist policy. It just means they can't be explicitly racist and their way to circumvent that happens to affect others as well. So your data points don't actually debunk that redlining was racist. So yes, your posts are mostly just opinion pieces rather than being based on evidence. Redlining is well documented to have been instituted for racist purposes. I can provide links later.

Strawmanning your own talking point is an interesting tactic. No one claimed historical racist housing laws didn’t exist. The claim was that formerly redlined areas still cause high rates of black residence today. However, there isn’t even correlation, much less causation, to support such a claim, as cited. That’s not an opinion. That’s a fact.

And you didn't answer the Pager point. So if there is a systemic difference in hiring outcomes, what is your alternative explanation when all other variables are controlled for?

Not true. For one, you continue to rely on the causation fallacy that substitutes a lack of disproof of a hypothesis as proof. For another, no, not all variables are controlled for. The causal side of the equation, the people doing the hiring, was not even mentioned. All that was acknowledged was the observation of disparate outcomes against certain metrics. As cited, hiring biases both for and against black applicants have been demonstrated.

[Aexodus]

Plenty of evidence for systemic racism in the US:
The disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine
The disparity between drug arrests despite equivalent percentages of drug use
Redlining policies
The legacy of Jim Crow laws
Disparity in hiring for equal applicants of different racism but equivalent qualifications
Legacy of sundown towns

And tons more over the years:
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-s...-paying-jobs-3
https://cph.osu.edu/news/2020/06/racism-public-health

With the exception of Jim Crow which is over, explain why these are the result of racism, then explain why it is systemic.

What policies have been instituted with this motivation, and are they still active today.

That’s a horrendous town. I wouldn’t want to live there.

If you want to convince me of anything, you have to talk to me and prove the facts to me. I’m not just going to believe it.

[chilon]

Strawmanning your own talking point is an interesting tactic. No one claimed historical racist housing laws didn’t exist. The claim was that formerly redlined areas still cause high rates of black residence today. However, there isn’t even correlation, much less causation, to support such a claim, as cited. That’s not an opinion. That’s a fact.

Not true. For one, you continue to rely on the causation fallacy that substitutes a lack of disproof of a hypothesis as proof. For another, no, not all variables are controlled for. The causal side of the equation, the people doing the hiring, was not even mentioned. All that was acknowledged was the observation of disparate outcomes against certain metrics. As cited, hiring biases both for and against black applicants have been demonstrated.

The only one doing strawmanning is you but I'm trying to get beyond that for a possible discussion.
So, what is your definition of systemic racism. I have asked you to provide your definition 3 times now and you are avoiding it. So what is your definition of systemic racism.

And you keep making fallacious arguments regarding the Pager research. There were multiple peer-reviewed studies conducted that demonstrated clear disparity in hiring between black and non-black applicants. What is your explanation for that then? If its not systemic racism then what is it? Where are the hiring biases in her research for black applicants? She conducted field experiments where the only differing variable in the applicant was race. So what is the explanation for the hiring disparity if not systemic racism?

Here is just one example of these studies:
"This study investigates change over time in the level of hiring discrimination in US labor markets. We perform a meta-analysis of every available field experiment of hiring discrimination against African Americans or Latinos (n = 28). Together, these studies represent 55,842 applications submitted for 26,326 positions. We focus on trends since 1989 (n = 24 studies), when field experiments became more common and improved methodologically. Since 1989, whites receive on average 36% more callbacks than African Americans, and 24% more callbacks than Latinos. We observe no change in the level of hiring discrimination against African Americans over the past 25 years, although we find modest evidence of a decline in discrimination against Latinos. Accounting for applicant education, applicant gender, study method, occupational groups, and local labor market conditions does little to alter this result. Contrary to claims of declining discrimination in American society, our estimates suggest that levels of discrimination remain largely unchanged, at least at the point of hire."
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/09/11/1706255114

To have any more useful discussion here though we both need to be using the same definition of systemic racism. So what's your definition?

[chilon]

Disparity of outcome can't just be dismissed out of hand, especially not without an alternative, more plausible explanation. For criminal justice, for instance, the issue is obviously more complex than just explicit racism and there is a bias towards wealth as well but you can't look at a pattern of disparity at every level of criminal justice and then just shake your head and say, there must be some other explanation without actually providing an alternative explanation when the US has a long history of racist laws and policies. If a system continually produces wildly disparate outcomes that affect a class of people, it doesn't have to be explicitly racist, that is the point of systemic racism. It can result from a complex interaction of factors which contribute to a systemic racist system. For instance,
"

• The highest officials in New York City had “turned a blind eye to the evidence that officers are conducting stops in a racially discriminatory manner,” Judge Shira A. Scheindlin concluded regarding the city’s stop-and-frisk tactic, declaring it unconstitutional in 2013.17) The policy, which broadly targeted male residents of neighborhoods populated by low-income people of color to uncover drugs and weapons, was shown to be ineffective, and this assessment was further validated when New York City continued its crime decline after scaling back Stop and Frisk. Yet other localities continue to deploy the practice.18)"

https://www.sentencingproject.org/pu...l-disparities/


For redlining you can go here:
https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/52665...egated-america
"At the same time, the FHA was subsidizing builders who were mass-producing entire subdivisions for whites — with the requirement that none of the homes be sold to African-Americans."
History doesn't just reset. These redlining policies that were instituted still have effects today because they constructed the structural disadvantages that are still experienced.


The Atwater quote is relevant because it shows that racists and those appealing to racists were well aware that explicit and overt racist policies would get called out so they instead shifted strategy to policies that are more camouflaged to hurt racial minorities more than whites. It reveals the tactics behind a lot of practices that are not overtly racist, like in America's past, but are designed to achieve outcomes that hurt racial minorities. The fact that some poor whites might get caught up in the process doesn't disprove the racial intent just like the fact that some blacks were free in the 1800s and some slaves were not black doesn't disprove that slavery was a racism institution.


@aexodus

[Cyclops]

What is your definition of systemic racism?

Ok, then what's your definition of systemic racism?

When you get no answer, that's a kind of answer.

[antaeus]

It's important not to be bamboozled by those who consider the word 'racism' an affront and those who abuse this sentiment in others by misrepresenting terms like 'structural racism' or 'systemic racism'.

I am deliberately offering a softer tone in the conversation. I think it is important to self-tone-police in order to move the conversation away from diametrically oppositional viewpoints to find a broadly workable solution. In this conversation we have two vastly separated camps - one which says that structural racism exists and is problematic. The other denies that it exists entirely, and that suggests the conversation itself is problematic. It is highly unlikely that any solution would be found that doesn't leave one camp or the other feeling like their rights have been walked on.

If we can find a middle ground through the careful use of language, and through focusing on context rather than broader systems, then we're more likely to find points of commonality that allow for progress in the conversation, or shifting of the status quo. As I have said in the past, what we're talking about here is cultural change: change in language and terms of reference, change in the perception of opportunities etc. We're arguing about structures in the very language we speak or in the relationships we have grown into. Changing this doesn't occur because of a violent protest. It occurs because the inter generational status quo shifts over long periods of time in a way that is inclusive of the concerns of those who oppose change.

As we've seen since my last post, the conversation has reverted into a debate over the very legitimacy of each side - which is pointless. At a societal level this sort of conversation will eventually lead advocates of one side or the other to start doing things with a violent or zero-sum edge because they are frustrated by the lack of movement in any direction in their opposition. "You're wrong... No you're wrong" is not a debate. Are people listening to each other while they speak in order to solve a dispute, or just taking the time to reload their guns to seek a coerced solution?



Back onto the election.... https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-...-idUSKBN28H137

Michigan Secretary of State says armed protesters gathered outside her home...

Tried to find it reported in right-leaning media for balance, but doesn't appear.

Curiously, as this thread has moved onto the purpose of BLM and whether it is extreme or not. Aside from whether this armed gathering happened as claimed, do we find the idea of armed protesters gathering at the personal residence of a state official to be an acceptable form of protest?

[Lord Thesaurian]

The only one doing strawmanning is you but I'm trying to get beyond that for a possible discussion.
So, what is your definition of systemic racism. I have asked you to provide your definition 3 times now and you are avoiding it. So what is your definition of systemic racism.

My decision not to follow your vacuous argumentation in its descent into rhetorical pedantry reflects on the caliber of your arguments, not mine. Some examples of systemic racism include California or Oregon enacting special benefits on the basis of race. While the rationale given for these measures was not explicitly racist, the use of race as the primary or even sole qualifying criteria determining inputs and outcomes establishes clear causation confirming systemic racism, in this case favoring one racial group over all others.

My personal feelings as to how systemic racism ought to be defined are as irrelevant as yours. You need to prove your claims, and so far you haven’t. Thus your only recourse is to falsely accuse me of having misrepresented/failed to respond to your points. I can only assume you’re not interested in defending them further.

And you keep making fallacious arguments regarding the Pager research. There were multiple peer-reviewed studies conducted that demonstrated clear disparity in hiring between black and non-black applicants. What is your explanation for that then? If its not systemic racism then what is it? Where are the hiring biases in her research for black applicants? She conducted field experiments where the only differing variable in the applicant was race. So what is the explanation for the hiring disparity if not systemic racism?

Here is just one example of these studies:
"This study investigates change over time in the level of hiring discrimination in US labor markets. We perform a meta-analysis of every available field experiment of hiring discrimination against African Americans or Latinos (n = 28). Together, these studies represent 55,842 applications submitted for 26,326 positions. We focus on trends since 1989 (n = 24 studies), when field experiments became more common and improved methodologically. Since 1989, whites receive on average 36% more callbacks than African Americans, and 24% more callbacks than Latinos. We observe no change in the level of hiring discrimination against African Americans over the past 25 years, although we find modest evidence of a decline in discrimination against Latinos. Accounting for applicant education, applicant gender, study method, occupational groups, and local labor market conditions does little to alter this result. Contrary to claims of declining discrimination in American society, our estimates suggest that levels of discrimination remain largely unchanged, at least at the point of hire."
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2.../11/1706255114

To have any more useful discussion here though we both need to be using the same definition of systemic racism. So what's your definition?

I haven’t made any fallacious arguments, nor have I misrepresented or ignored the study(s) you cited. I simply stated the fact that the methodology (again from Pager et al, first 2003, then 2017) observed disparate outcomes when looking at previous field studies, without even attempting to explore, let alone substantiate, the causation needed to begin to establish claims of “systemic racism.”

There are any number of potential causes for observed disparities, and as cited (and ignored), hiring bias both in favor of and against black applicants has been demonstrated. The racially disparate outcomes don’t even necessarily persist when inputs are randomized through proxies.

We sent nearly 9,000 fictitious resumes to advertisements for job openings in seven major cities in the United States across six occupational categories. We randomly assigned names to the resumes that convey race and gender but for which a strong socioeconomic connotation is not implicated. We find little evidence of systematic employer preferences for applicants from particular race and gender groups.

https://economics.missouri.edu/worki...419_koedel.pdf

[Ludicus]

This is really not true. Disparities in outcomes can result from a large number of causes, including cultural values.. Take for example.. Asian Americans, through cultural norms and values, tend to save more. Whereas African Americans are the opposite.

Love Mountain, enlighten me about the Afro-American cultural values...
------
Financial Impotence Is Worse for Blacks and Hispanics
Here's why black families have struggled for decades to gain ...

America's Racial Wealth Gap In Retirement Savings – Forbes

You cannot simplify the problem by saying people of color don’t save enough for their golden years. Understanding the systemic racism faced by Americans of color throughout their working lives is crucial to solving the racial retirement gap.
Think of the racial retirement gap this way: Systemic racism has depressed each category that makes up the overall net worth of Black Americans—and overall net worth helps determine your level of retirement security. Here’s how Americans of color have fallen behind, from earning less than white Americans, to having significantly less home equity.

------
Ocasionally,in politics, the center is a moving target.

60 Minutes interview. Nancy Pelosi, April 2019, “I’m a progressive”,
she said. Two minutes later,“we have to hold the center, we have to go down the mainstream.”

AOC on Twitter,
“I’m not running from the left; I’m running from the bottom.”

The Republican Party is an exception.

Why There Are So Few Moderate Republicans Left ...

And because the Republican Party has been pulling in a more extreme direction for decades now, most Republican moderates have either quit the team or reoriented themselves in a more combative, Trumpian direction to stay alive. And these forces will most likely continue to tug at the party, leaving would-be moderates with the same choice they’ve faced for decades: Quit, or get on board.

[chilon]

My decision not to follow your vacuous argumentation in its descent into rhetorical pedantry reflects on the caliber of your arguments, not mine. My personal feelings as to how systemic racism ought to be defined are as irrelevant as yours. You need to prove your claims, and so far you haven’t. Thus your only recourse is to falsely accuse me of having misrepresented/failed to respond to your points. I can only assume you’re not interested in defending them further.

I haven’t made any fallacious arguments, nor have I misrepresented or ignored the study(s) you cited. I simply stated the fact that the methodology (again from Pager et al, first 2003, then 2017) observed disparate outcomes when looking at previous field studies, without even attempting to explore, let alone substantiate, the causation needed to begin to establish claims of “systemic racism.”

There are any number of potential causes for observed disparities, and as cited (and ignored), hiring bias both in favor of and against black applicants has been demonstrated. The racially disparate outcomes don’t even necessarily persist when inputs are randomized through proxies.

The fact that you refuse to even provide your own definition for what you believe systemic racism even is shows that you have no intention to argue in good faith. There can be no reasonable debate on a contentious topic without first defining that topic.

When you're ready to provide your own definition then we can progress. Until then I can only assume you have no valid arguments to defend your belief that systemic racism doesn't exist.

And once again, what is your alternative explanation for the results of Pager's research?

[Lord Thesaurian]

The fact that you refuse to even provide your own definition for what you believe systemic racism even is shows that you have no intention to argue in good faith. There can be no reasonable debate on a contentious topic without first defining that topic.

When you're ready to provide your own definition then we can progress. Until then I can only assume you have no valid arguments to defend your belief that systemic racism doesn't exist.

Yeah, not how this works. You claimed to cite evidence proving systemic racism using information that does not establish any such thing. I don’t need to define your premises for you when your argument doesn’t even withstand scrutiny under your own metrics. Your decision to concede a lack of an argument in defense of your claims is not indicative of some fundamental difference in my premises. We’re not talking past each other. Your arguments were refuted, at times even using your own sources.

And once again, what is your alternative explanation for the results of Pager's research?

And likewise, I’ll consider your decision to ignore actual evidence of hiring biases, as well as factual analyses undermining your claims of unexplainable disparities, as a concession that you are not interested in defending your claims. Pager’s research was fully acknowledged and addressed, so your tactic of pleading ignorance here is useless.

[chilon]

Yeah, not how this works. You claimed to cite evidence proving systemic racism using information that does not establish any such thing. I donÂ’t need to define your premises for you when your argument doesnÂ’t even withstand scrutiny under your own metrics. Your decision to concede a lack of an argument in defense of your claims is not indicative of some fundamental difference in my premises. WeÂ’re not talking past each other. Your arguments were refuted, at times even using your own sources.

And likewise, IÂ’ll consider your decision to ignore actual evidence of hiring biases, as well as factual analyses undermining your claims of unexplainable disparities, as a concession that you are not interested in defending your claims. PagerÂ’s research was fully acknowledged and addressed, so your tactic of pleading ignorance here is useless.

You haven't refuted anything. You've simply stated your opinion (clearly loaded with its own biases) that the examples I and others have given of systemic racism you disregard. But you aren't providing any standard that you will accept, such as providing your own definition of systemic racism. Re: Pager, you simply said "there are plenty of other explanations" without actually stating those alternative explanations. You did finally link an article but I haven't had time to dissect it yet so that at least is an improvement on your other posts in this thread. Thanks for posting an actual link for once.

Since you refuse to post your own definition. I'll just go ahead with this one:

"Systemic racism, which refers to the systems in place that perpetuate racial injustice, has three primary components to its definition, says Bonilla-Silva. First, it's historically specific, meaning the systems maintaining racial injustice change over time (and sometimes based on location).
Second, systemic racism is a distinctly structural phenomenon, meaning the practices and behaviors that perpetuate racism within a system are baked into the system itself. This also means that regardless of intention, most people participate in some way with the systems that are in place, Bonilla-Silva notes.
Finally, Bonilla-Silva explains that where systemic racism exists, if the system provides advantages for some, it disadvantages others."
- from Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, a Duke University sociologist who studies the collective and structural phenomena of racism, and Osagie K. Obasogie, a bioethicist at the University of California, Berkeley who has studied racial disparities in health, to break down what systemic racism means and how it can be dismantled.
Redlining clearly falls under this definition. As does criminal justice as shown by the article I linked from the Sentencing Project and so does every other example I linked fall into that definition. Your note about Redlining not only affecting black Americans does not refute the practice of it being an example of system racism.
"While redlining prevented both Black and white families from obtaining loans for homes in Type D neighborhoods, the bigger impact was on Black families, who were blocked from buying homes in the neighborhoods where they already lived."
“The expanding homeownership gap between Black and white families can in part be traced back to diminished home equity due to redlining, as it’s one major reason why Black families today have less money than white families to purchase homes either as first-time or move-up homebuyers,” said Redfin chief economist Daryl Fairweather. “It’s important to note that other factors play a role in lower homeownership rates for Black families, too. For instance, employment discrimination has prevented Black workers from earning equitable income.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brendarichardson/2020/06/11/redlinings-legacy-of-inequality-low-homeownership-rates-less-equity-for-black-households/?sh=4accf41a2a7c

“The combination of rapid defaults and the refusal to issue new mortgages is what created a pretty sharp asymmetry between areas that were considered to be good for single-family home occupancy and those that were really primed for predatory forms of rental entrepreneurship,” he said.
That last part is important, Connolly said, because people often assume that redlining kept investors away. In fact, speculators piled in, buying up homes and charging inflated rents to families they knew had few options."

“There were 239 maps made,” said Braden Crooks, one of the creators of Undesign the Redline. “It was really ubiquitous across the country.”
A timeline in the exhibit shows how those maps paved the way for urban decay and white flight in the 1960s and ’70s, mass incarceration in the ’80s and ’90s, the foreclosure crisis of the 2000s and the gentrification of today — and how all of that has prevented African American communities from building generational wealth.
“The exhibit unpacks the policy history of how we designed structural racism and inequality into cities and places and policies, in ways that it really has never been undone,” Crooks said.
https://www.marketplace.org/2020/04/...e-our-economy/

[Lord Thesaurian]

You haven't refuted anything. You've simply stated your opinion (clearly loaded with its own biases) that the examples I and others have given of systemic racism you disregard. But you aren't providing any standard that you will accept, such as providing your own definition of systemic racism. Re: Pager, you simply said "there are plenty of other explanations" without actually stating those alternative explanations. You did finally link an article but I haven't had time to dissect it yet so that at least is an improvement on your other posts in this thread. Thanks for posting an actual link for once.

This is demonstrably false. I’m not sure what’s more ridiculous, your repeated Big Lebowski deflection when your claims are refuted, lying about my not having posted any links, or claiming that I didn’t address Pager’s observations.

Since you refuse to post your own definition. I'll just go ahead with this one:

"Systemic racism, which refers to the systems in place that perpetuate racial injustice, has three primary components to its definition, says Bonilla-Silva. First, it's historically specific, meaning the systems maintaining racial injustice change over time (and sometimes based on location).
Second, systemic racism is a distinctly structural phenomenon, meaning the practices and behaviors that perpetuate racism within a system are baked into the system itself. This also means that regardless of intention, most people participate in some way with the systems that are in place, Bonilla-Silva notes.
Finally, Bonilla-Silva explains that where systemic racism exists, if the system provides advantages for some, it disadvantages others."
- from Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, a Duke University sociologist who studies the collective and structural phenomena of racism, and Osagie K. Obasogie, a bioethicist at the University of California, Berkeley who has studied racial disparities in health, to break down what systemic racism means and how it can be dismantled.
Redlining clearly falls under this definition. As does criminal justice as shown by the article I linked from the Sentencing Project and so does every other example I linked fall into that definition. Your note about Redlining not only affecting black Americans does not refute the practice of it being an example of system racism.

Again, the historical existence of redlining was not disputed, your attempts to motte and bailey your claims about it notwithstanding. The claim was that formerly redlined areas still cause high rates rates of black residence today. However, there isn’t even correlation, much less causation, to support such a claim, as cited. That’s not an opinion. That’s a fact. Nor does reiterating the obvious, ie that systemic racism is both structural and endemic in nature, establish your claims about it which were refuted on their own terms As I said, doesn’t matter whether or not your claims about systemic racism are using the correct definition of the term when you haven’t even proven them in the first place.

"While redlining prevented both Black and white families from obtaining loans for homes in Type D neighborhoods, the bigger impact was on Black families, who were blocked from buying homes in the neighborhoods where they already lived."
“The expanding homeownership gap between Black and white families can in part be traced back to diminished home equity due to redlining, as it’s one major reason why Black families today have less money than white families to purchase homes either as first-time or move-up homebuyers,” said Redfin chief economist Daryl Fairweather. “It’s important to note that other factors play a role in lower homeownership rates for Black families, too. For instance, employment discrimination has prevented Black workers from earning equitable income.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brendarichardson/2020/06/11/redlinings-legacy-of-inequality-low-homeownership-rates-less-equity-for-black-households/?sh=4accf41a2a7c

“The combination of rapid defaults and the refusal to issue new mortgages is what created a pretty sharp asymmetry between areas that were considered to be good for single-family home occupancy and those that were really primed for predatory forms of rental entrepreneurship,” he said.
That last part is important, Connolly said, because people often assume that redlining kept investors away. In fact, speculators piled in, buying up homes and charging inflated rents to families they knew had few options."

“There were 239 maps made,” said Braden Crooks, one of the creators of Undesign the Redline. “It was really ubiquitous across the country.”
A timeline in the exhibit shows how those maps paved the way for urban decay and white flight in the 1960s and ’70s, mass incarceration in the ’80s and ’90s, the foreclosure crisis of the 2000s and the gentrification of today — and how all of that has prevented African American communities from building generational wealth.
“The exhibit unpacks the policy history of how we designed structural racism and inequality into cities and places and policies, in ways that it really has never been undone,” Crooks said.
https://www.marketplace.org/2020/04/...e-our-economy/

These claims attempting to establish causality of the underlying issues, especially linking redlining to current incarceration rates and the wealth gap, as well as allegations of racial employment discrimination, were addressed in the linked post.

[chilon]

This is demonstrably false. I’m not sure what’s more ridiculous, your repeated Big Lebowski deflection when your claims are refuted, lying about my not having posted any links, or claiming that I didn’t address Pager’s observations.

Again, the historical existence of redlining was not disputed, your attempts to motte and bailey your claims about it notwithstanding. The claim was that formerly redlined areas still cause high rates rates of black residence today. However, there isn’t even correlation, much less causation, to support such a claim, as cited. That’s not an opinion. That’s a fact. Nor does reiterating the obvious, ie that systemic racism is both structural and endemic in nature, establish your claims about it which were refuted on their own terms As I said, doesn’t matter whether or not your claims about systemic racism are using the correct definition of the term when you haven’t even proven them in the first place.

These claims attempting to establish causality of the underlying issues, especially linking redlining to current incarceration rates and the wealth gap, as well as allegations of racial employment discrimination, were addressed in the linked post.

Then we are at an impasse because from what I read you post, you have neither debunked nor refuted anything. You've thrown out a few cherry-picked points of data that do not refute the overall research and since you won't even provide your own definition, its clear now, you will just worm your way around anything posted and pretend like you've refuted research you haven't actually refuted. You do like to throw in insults whenever you can so its pointless debating with someone like you that doesn't post in good faith.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Then we are at an impasse because from what I read you post, you have neither debunked nor refuted anything. You've thrown out a few cherry-picked points of data that do not refute the overall research and since you won't even provide your own definition, its clear now, you will just worm your way around anything posted and pretend like you've refuted research you haven't actually refuted. You do like to throw in insults whenever you can so its pointless debating with someone like you that doesn't post in good faith.

Projecting your own bad faith argumentation is a poor deflection from the unsubstantiated and otherwise refuted claims it relies on. You can call me a big meanie all you want but I’m not even the only poster here who has pointed this out to you repeatedly and gotten ignored.

[Muizer]

I am deliberately offering a softer tone in the conversation. I think it is important to self-tone-police in order to move the conversation away from diametrically oppositional viewpoints to find a broadly workable solution. In this conversation we have two vastly separated camps - one which says that structural racism exists and is problematic. The other denies that it exists entirely, and that suggests the conversation itself is problematic. It is highly unlikely that any solution would be found that doesn't leave one camp or the other feeling like their rights have been walked on.

Systemic racism is a very broad concept. Basically its bottom line is to recognize that at a societal level a collective responsibility exists for the existence and perpetuation of racial inequality, and for ending it. It already has the 'soft tone', in that it absolves individuals of significant blame. The only ones who can't get onboard with this would be those who recognize de facto racial inequality but are content to sit back and do nothing about it. In other words the overt racists and the covert ones, who somehow manage to convince themselves that this outcome is in line with a meritocratic society.

The politically interesting question that the acknowledgement of systemic racism leaves wide open is not whether to tackle it, but how. I think we should just move on to that question instead of trying to engage the few deniers as they fight their rear guard action.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Systemic racism is a very broad concept. Basically its bottom line is to recognize that at a societal level a collective responsibility exists for the existence and perpetuation of racial inequality, and for ending it.
It already has the 'soft tone', in that it absolves individuals of significant blame. The only ones who can't get onboard with this would be those who recognize de facto racial inequality but are content to sit back and do nothing about it. In other words the overt racists and the covert ones, who somehow manage to convince themselves that this outcome is in line with a meritocratic society.

The politically interesting question that the acknowledgement of systemic racism leaves wide open is not whether to tackle it, but how. I think we should just move on to that question instead of trying to engage the few deniers as they fight their rear guard action.

How do you propose to tackle the “systemic racism” that causes unequal outcomes in obesity, educational attainment, income, violent crime, and life expectancy, disproportionately harming all other racial demographics relative to Asian Americans?

[Ludicus]

How do you propose to tackle the “systemic racism” that causes unequal outcomes..

Send them to Liberia? (j/k) (1)
Health,Public Health Reviews volume 37, Article number: 12 (2016)
Improving the health of African Americans in the USA: an oversue opportunity for social justice

(...) The systemic nature of racism as a cause of health disparities must be counteracted by equally systemic measures, through social programs, economic investment, criminal system reform, decreased segregation in positions of institutional power, more inclusive research and appropriate funding of public agencies, healthcare institutions, and HBCUs [90, 97]. Further implementation and expansion of the Affordable Care Act should result in improved health outcomes for black populations [98].

(...)After 250 years of social segregation and discrimination, current health data confirm that African Americans are the least healthy ethnic group in the USA. Although the resources and policies to eliminate disparities exist in the USA, there has been inadequate long-term commitment to successful strategies and to the funding necessary to achieve health equity. African Americans have not been in the fiscal nor political positions to assure the successful implementation of long-term efforts; the health of African Americans has not been a priority for decision makers.Usually, the black community is not present when strategies and programs addressing their poor health status are designed and prioritized, and planners have limited understanding of the social mores and history of the African American community. The administration of health and social organizations serving black communities is rarely in the hands of those with this knowledge and commitment.

Current mortality disparities are evident in cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, and infant mortality. These causes of death may be the most visible health problems for African Americans, but they do not tell the whole story. Mental illness is the second largest cause of morbidity in African Americans, and violence in the form of homicide is the greatest cause of preventable death. High levels of poverty, lack of education, and excess incarceration further compound the poor health status of African Americans.
The USA is in the midst of a surge in training health professionals, but, for many reasons, the institutions (HBCUs) created to educate African Americans have not made much impact on advancing the health of African Americans. African Americans are under-represented in all of the professions responsible for the provision of intimate physical, mental, and social care.

All health providers should be required to obtain regular training and refreshing in the provision of equitable care; this includes providers of color. Training of young people of color in the health professions should be viewed as an urgent national objective requiring the rebuilding of many of social development and community health programs of the past which have been virtually extinguished by lack of funds. Outreach to young people of color encouraging them to pursue health careers should be given a much higher priority. The role of HBCUs in the preparation of young populations for health careers must be strengthened.

It is evident that focusing on health risks alone is not conducive to redressing health disparities among African Americans, given that structural factors primarily underlie their poorer health outcomes and shorter lifespans. Tackling the social determinants of health, from poverty to the built environment, racial discrimination, violence, and incarceration, is likely to elicit greater effects on black health than risk reduction programs. Even though the ACA has expanded access to African Americans, medical care for people with unhealthy lifestyles and social and cultural barriers to access will have limited effects on reducing health disparities of African Americans in the USA.

---
Jon Ossoff’s speech against the...Bonnie and Clyde of political corruption in America,

(...)The whole world is watching us.And here what’s happening in Georgia right now. You got the young Jewish Journalist son of an immigrant running alongside a black preacher who holds the same pulpit as dr. King at Ebenezer Batiste Church building... and we are runing against the Bonnie and Clyde of political corruption in America.David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler.

The naked corruption of Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue

On January 24, there was a private all-Senate briefing about the looming disaster — long before there was a broad public understanding that the U.S. was going to get slammed by COVID-19. Immediately afterward, both Loeffler and Perdue started trading strategic stocks. As The Daily Beast reported at the time, Loeffler executed 29 transactions valued between $1.275 and $3.1 million in the following days before the market crashed, almost all of them sales — one exception was a purchase of Citrix, which sells teleworking software. (Also, Loeffler recently violated the legal prohibition on soliciting campaign funds in a Senate office building.)
Perdue made a similar number of trades, but bought more than Loeffler — in particular, an investment of up to $850,000 in DuPont, which manufactures personal protective equipment.
And as The Associated Press reports, in late January he sold between $1 million and $5 million in shares of Cardlytics, a financial technology firm, at $86 per share. Then, when the market had bottomed out in March, he snapped up between $200,000 and $500,000 of Cardlytics shares at $30 apiece; since then the share price has shot back up to $121. Nice tidy little profit to counterbalance the 270,000 dead Americans. (The Daily Beast also reports that in 2019, Perdue bought up shares of a submarine parts manufacturer before voting to give the company a lucrative contract, then sold it for another handsome profit.)
The Democrats may not be much of a friend to the working class or rural farmers, but Republicans are straight-up picking their pockets. If you want a couple senators to govern solely on behalf of their massive asset portfolio while leaving everyone else twisting in the wind, vote Perdue and Loeffler.

----
(1) send African Americans to Africa - Time Magazine

To the land of their fathers.

Whether or not they knew it, the crowds who cheered President Donald Trump at a July 17 rally in North Carolina by chanting “send her back” in reference to Rep. Ilhan Omar were part of a long American story of telling certain people they don’t belong in the country.
(...)These words stood out for being part of a very particular anti-immigrant strain in American history: the idea that people who are deemed “inferior” or “other,” even if they were born in the U.S., are not really American and thus ought to leave. The contours of the “in” and “out” groups have evolved — though white Anglo-American Protestants have dominated the former — but the idea has deep roots. This idea began to take shape practically as soon as the United States became home to a significant community of free black people, which was not long after the American Revolution

[Cope]

Supposing systemic racism refers to the widespread negative effects of white in-group bias (which is almost certainly how the above poster understands it), it should be noted that white Americans have worse health outcomes in terms of longevity than both Asian Americans and Latino Americans.

Nationally, AsianAmericans live the longest (87.1 years), followed by Latinos (83.3 years),whites (78.9 years), Native Americans (76.9 years), and African Americans(75.4 years).

http://ssrc-static.s3.amazonaws.com/...-4.22.2015.pdf (p. 25)

[Lord Thesaurian]

Send them to Liberia? (j/k) (1)
Health,Public Health Reviews volume 37, Article number: 12 (2016)
Improving the health of African Americans in the USA: an oversue opportunity for social justice




---
Jon Ossoff’s speech against the...Bonnie and Clyde of political corruption in America,


The naked corruption of Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue


----
(1) send African Americans to Africa - Time Magazine

To the land of their fathers.

As a response to the query: “How do you propose to tackle the “systemic racism” that causes unequal outcomes favoring Asian Americans above all other racial demographics,” your proposal to send them or any other racial group to Africa doesn’t really make sense. Given that your causal premise for this apparent systemic racism of Asian supremacy is that structural bias causes their superior outcomes, the commentary on African Americans also would seem to be a non sequitur.

[Muizer]

How do you propose to tackle the “systemic racism” that causes unequal outcomes in obesity, educational attainment, income, violent crime, and life expectancy, disproportionately harming all other racial demographics relative to Asian Americans?

Taking Asian Americans as a benchmark would be a mistake. Over 75% of Asian American adults are foreign born. As such their group stats cannot be considered to reflect 'outcomes' in any way relevant to this discussion.

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018...-among-asians/
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ian-americans/