Bruce Leroy said:

---

bularry said:

---

Are you not capable of rational thought? You type jibberish like you are so clever

---

Thank you for your opinion.

Please go ahead and address a thought that I posted in this thread that is irrational. (I assume you think many).

I am open to clarify what I meant or concede that I was incorrect in my opinion and that you or others have brought up a good point for me to think about.

---

I'm addressing your comments to DC.

And I don't necessarily agree with DC I just think you are being intentionally obtuse in your discussion with him.

bularry said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

bularry said:

---

Are you not capable of rational thought? You type jibberish like you are so clever

---

Thank you for your opinion.

Please go ahead and address a thought that I posted in this thread that is irrational. (I assume you think many).

I am open to clarify what I meant or concede that I was incorrect in my opinion and that you or others have brought up a good point for me to think about.

---

I'm addressing your comments to DC.

And I don't necessarily agree with DC I just think you are being intentionally obtuse in your discussion with him.

---

Thanks for the clarification. I will admit that my post are not always easy to read, can be hard to follow and can appear messy.

What areas am I being "intentionally obtuse" with DC?

If you can't expect another poster to admit they were wrong or have them refine they meant "x" then how can we engage with them seriously.

DC won't answer the question or at least backtrack.

Do you think "Systemic racism, however, does not require racism." is even remotely close to a reasonable answer to the topic?

Do you think DC should get a "free pass" and not to be called out until there is a response?

Do you not think that DC has been "intentionally obtuse" to the arguments that social security is not racist/systemic racism?

Please read the entire thread and determine whom you think is being "obtuse".

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

57Bear said:

---

... My point is that something doesn't have to be designed to be racist or have racist intent to have a racial effect. ...

If you view this to be a problem, do you have a proposed fix?

---

For Social Security, individual accounts.

---

Could you expand this some more for my understanding.

How would the individual account setup be run? Example?

---

Something similar to Galveston County.

---

Thanks.

IV Conclusion: Page 54.

"The relative value of benefits available under each system varies depending on earnings and family structure, and the length of time for which benefits are received."

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v62n2/v62n2p59.pdf

Please try reconcile that and your premise that social security is "Systemic Racism".

Would your fix (similar to Galveston County) not result in the exact same place as the justification you stated that makes Social Security systemically racist?

Your Post's before.

"Life expectancy by race. Retire, get less back before you die, on average, if you are African American. Systemic racism. Sexist, too, as women live longer than men."

"If you look at expected remaining lifespan at 50, you eliminate anyone who died earlier from violence. Social Security is a minor example of a program that that is immoral towards everyone, but does disproportionately impact African Americans."

It would appear that your example wouldn't fix the "issue".

Do you have any other proposed fixes?

Can it be fixed?

---

No, it would not "result in the same place."
When you have an individual account, your estate still has the money even if you die. It does not revert to the government.

---

There will be people who squander their account on bad investments. Accounts could be laid waste by a Black Swan. You & I know the government will rescue these folks with some safety net of last resort.

---

How would this differ from various 401k retirement accounts we have today?

---

1. Most people don't have one
2. Taxpayers will probably bail out government pension plans that are essentially insolvent
3. Everyone's 401 K plans are not equal. Some invest poorly and lose it all. What will you recommend when their nest egg is gone?

---

1. Everyone who has Social Security today would have one, and that's close enough.
2. It is not a defined benefit plan, there is nothing to bail out.
3. If you limit the investments options, as is pretty standard with these accounts, not one will "lose it all."

This is getting away from the my main point of the thread: systemic racism is a real thing that does not require racism, as defined by the belief that members of one race are superior to members of another race.

---

Social Security as your example of "Systemic Racism" is a major point of the thread introduced by you.

You in this tread have articulated

1) Racism was not designed in to the Social Security system to start with.

While there have been some claims that social security, in its original iteration, excluded a lot of African Americans, I have not seen any evidence that was done because of race. My point is that something doesn't have to be designed to be racist or have racist intent to have a racial effect. However, there are many better examples.

2) SS code doesn't contain malevolent and/or racially motivated rules.

57Bear said:" Does systemic racism have a generally accepted definition? Are you saying that the SS code contains malevolent and/or racially motivated rules?

D.C Bear "I doubt if there is just one definition of systemic racism. No, I am saying it doesn't"

3) "Racism" is not "any time there is disparity between race.", which doesn't support your original position
.
"Life expectancy by race. Retire, get less back before you die, on average, if you are African American. Systemic racism. Sexist, too, as women live longer than men."

4) So your remaining support of Social Security is "racist" and part of "systemic racism" is

"Systemic racism, however, does not require racism.".

5) "Systemic racism is a real thing" (your attempt to steer the discussion above) is a different argument than

Your post: "Systemic racism is real. Have you never heard of Social Security?"

and your response to RD2WINAGNBEAR86 question" Do please enlighten us about how Social Security is racist! (This should be good!)."

Your response:
"Life expectancy by race. Retire, get less back before you die, on average, if you are African American. Systemic racism. Sexist, too, as women live longer than men"

---

I think you are not seeing the forest for the trees.

Perhaps. Maybe I am not trying to steer the discussion away from Social Security is racist.

1. Racism and systemic racism are two very different concepts.

Yes. You have defined racism in your opinion in this thread.

Regarding "Systemic racism" you have responded "I doubt if there is just one definition of systemic racism" and "Systemic racism, however, does not require racism.".

So you haven't defined the concept.

So what is it regarding "systemic racism" as defined in the context of social security?

You originally said disproportional life expectancy.

2. Social Security is an example of something that isn't racist on its face displaying systemic racism. I have said (more than once) that it is a minor example, but it doesn't seem anyone wants to talk about examples like redlining, which I have mentioned multiple times on this thread already.

"Displaying systemic racism" (although not yet defined) does not mean that Social Security is racist. You have said it wasn't started as racist, doesn't contain malevolent or racially motivated rules.


Simple kids reasoning. Walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck = Duck.

You don't have" swims" or "quacks" to support = Duck.

How can we have a rational discussion about redlining when you will not redefine your statement of Social Security is racist?

3. Systemic racism may, alternatively, grow out of racism and may remain in place even when the racism that brought it about is gone.

We haven't defined "systemic racism" but how does this reconcile with Social Security when "there was no racism that brought it about" (as you said) in the first place?

---

---

It is important to differentiate between racism and systemic racism. You are apparently not seeing a difference between racism and systemic racism, so you are asking "How can we have a rational discussion about redlining when you will not redefine your statement of Social Security is racist?" However, I do not have a statement of "Social Security is racist." Instead, I have a statement of Social Security is an example of "systemic racism." I have also said it is a minor example and that redlining is a more direct example.

The entire discussion is a response to a claim that George W. Bush is the second soon to be declared the second worst president because he used the term "systemic racism" in his statement.

Now, here is a question for you: do you believe that systemic racism is a real thing in American society?

---

That is true you do not have a statement of "Social Security is racist".

But you do have a reply that how Social Security is racist? "Life expectancy by race"

And that "that Social Security is functionally racist"

When the disproportional outcome is not "racist" necessarily is brought up by other posters ie

OsoCoreyell: Challense "Disparate impact is not racism.".

57Bear said: "SS code contain malevolent and/or racially motivated rules?.
BusyTarpDuster2018 makes their challenges.

You attempt to steer "racist/racism" to "Systemic racism" discussion.

In response to your:
"Instead, I have a statement of Social Security is an example of "systemic racism." I have also said it is a minor example and that redlining is a more direct example."

Where do you make this statement? You have not defined "Systemic racism". Or at least in terms of Social Security. -----You do have a statement of how it is "racist".

Your George Bush paragraph is just another attempt to steer the conversation.

---

I posted George Bush's statement because I found it interesting.
This has been a discussion of systemic racism from about the third post on the thread, with additional tangential discussion of Social Security. You seem to be missing about half of what I post, but I am disinclined to correct you on every point.

Try answering this instead. Is systemic racism, by whatever definition you want to offer, a problem in American society? Why or why not?

---

Why do you always try and steer things?

The "George Bush" sentence (I incorrectly called paragraph) I referenced was in your reply. I am aware of your original post.

I have read all your posts in this thread. I am not addressing all you posts in this thread.

I am specifically addressing your adding social security to the discussion.

Look if you would have articulated a general point of Social Security along the lines of

Social security's lack of present value of annuity payout to beneficiaries estates reduces wealth transference between generations. This significantly impacts races which have shorter life expectancy's. (ie. African Americans, and Hispanics).

Wealth transference between generations is a important components of closing "racial" wealth gap disparities and good for American Society.

I would not be responding so much.

"If you said anything along the lines Social Security does disproportionately impact African American men but it is not a example of "systematic racism". It is not racist. I was incorrect to say it does."

I would say I agree and lets discuss how systemic racism is a problem in American society and see how/if we can address it.

But, since you cant even admit that Social Security is not systemically racist/racism why would you expect anyone to engage with you seriously?

---

If one holds a definition of systemic racism that requires racist intent, either original or ongoing, then Social Security isn't "racist." I don't hold the view that intent is required. You basically lay out an argument for why Social Security is an example of systemic racism under that view. You seem to think, however, that it is important that I agree with your view to have a reasonable discussion. It isn't.

What kind of question is "Why do you always try to steer things?" That makes no sense at all. Like anyone else, I bring up points for discussion that I find interesting.

Do you believe that systemic racism is a problem in American society, why or why not?

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

57Bear said:

---

... My point is that something doesn't have to be designed to be racist or have racist intent to have a racial effect. ...

If you view this to be a problem, do you have a proposed fix?

---

For Social Security, individual accounts.

---

Could you expand this some more for my understanding.

How would the individual account setup be run? Example?

---

Something similar to Galveston County.

---

Thanks.

IV Conclusion: Page 54.

"The relative value of benefits available under each system varies depending on earnings and family structure, and the length of time for which benefits are received."

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v62n2/v62n2p59.pdf

Please try reconcile that and your premise that social security is "Systemic Racism".

Would your fix (similar to Galveston County) not result in the exact same place as the justification you stated that makes Social Security systemically racist?

Your Post's before.

"Life expectancy by race. Retire, get less back before you die, on average, if you are African American. Systemic racism. Sexist, too, as women live longer than men."

"If you look at expected remaining lifespan at 50, you eliminate anyone who died earlier from violence. Social Security is a minor example of a program that that is immoral towards everyone, but does disproportionately impact African Americans."

It would appear that your example wouldn't fix the "issue".

Do you have any other proposed fixes?

Can it be fixed?

---

No, it would not "result in the same place."
When you have an individual account, your estate still has the money even if you die. It does not revert to the government.

---

There will be people who squander their account on bad investments. Accounts could be laid waste by a Black Swan. You & I know the government will rescue these folks with some safety net of last resort.

---

How would this differ from various 401k retirement accounts we have today?

---

1. Most people don't have one
2. Taxpayers will probably bail out government pension plans that are essentially insolvent
3. Everyone's 401 K plans are not equal. Some invest poorly and lose it all. What will you recommend when their nest egg is gone?

---

1. Everyone who has Social Security today would have one, and that's close enough.
2. It is not a defined benefit plan, there is nothing to bail out.
3. If you limit the investments options, as is pretty standard with these accounts, not one will "lose it all."

This is getting away from the my main point of the thread: systemic racism is a real thing that does not require racism, as defined by the belief that members of one race are superior to members of another race.

---

Social Security as your example of "Systemic Racism" is a major point of the thread introduced by you.

You in this tread have articulated

1) Racism was not designed in to the Social Security system to start with.

While there have been some claims that social security, in its original iteration, excluded a lot of African Americans, I have not seen any evidence that was done because of race. My point is that something doesn't have to be designed to be racist or have racist intent to have a racial effect. However, there are many better examples.

2) SS code doesn't contain malevolent and/or racially motivated rules.

57Bear said:" Does systemic racism have a generally accepted definition? Are you saying that the SS code contains malevolent and/or racially motivated rules?

D.C Bear "I doubt if there is just one definition of systemic racism. No, I am saying it doesn't"

3) "Racism" is not "any time there is disparity between race.", which doesn't support your original position
.
"Life expectancy by race. Retire, get less back before you die, on average, if you are African American. Systemic racism. Sexist, too, as women live longer than men."

4) So your remaining support of Social Security is "racist" and part of "systemic racism" is

"Systemic racism, however, does not require racism.".

5) "Systemic racism is a real thing" (your attempt to steer the discussion above) is a different argument than

Your post: "Systemic racism is real. Have you never heard of Social Security?"

and your response to RD2WINAGNBEAR86 question" Do please enlighten us about how Social Security is racist! (This should be good!)."

Your response:
"Life expectancy by race. Retire, get less back before you die, on average, if you are African American. Systemic racism. Sexist, too, as women live longer than men"

---

I think you are not seeing the forest for the trees.

Perhaps. Maybe I am not trying to steer the discussion away from Social Security is racist.

1. Racism and systemic racism are two very different concepts.

Yes. You have defined racism in your opinion in this thread.

Regarding "Systemic racism" you have responded "I doubt if there is just one definition of systemic racism" and "Systemic racism, however, does not require racism.".

So you haven't defined the concept.

So what is it regarding "systemic racism" as defined in the context of social security?

You originally said disproportional life expectancy.

2. Social Security is an example of something that isn't racist on its face displaying systemic racism. I have said (more than once) that it is a minor example, but it doesn't seem anyone wants to talk about examples like redlining, which I have mentioned multiple times on this thread already.

"Displaying systemic racism" (although not yet defined) does not mean that Social Security is racist. You have said it wasn't started as racist, doesn't contain malevolent or racially motivated rules.


Simple kids reasoning. Walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck = Duck.

You don't have" swims" or "quacks" to support = Duck.

How can we have a rational discussion about redlining when you will not redefine your statement of Social Security is racist?

3. Systemic racism may, alternatively, grow out of racism and may remain in place even when the racism that brought it about is gone.

We haven't defined "systemic racism" but how does this reconcile with Social Security when "there was no racism that brought it about" (as you said) in the first place?

---

---

It is important to differentiate between racism and systemic racism. You are apparently not seeing a difference between racism and systemic racism, so you are asking "How can we have a rational discussion about redlining when you will not redefine your statement of Social Security is racist?" However, I do not have a statement of "Social Security is racist." Instead, I have a statement of Social Security is an example of "systemic racism." I have also said it is a minor example and that redlining is a more direct example.

The entire discussion is a response to a claim that George W. Bush is the second soon to be declared the second worst president because he used the term "systemic racism" in his statement.

Now, here is a question for you: do you believe that systemic racism is a real thing in American society?

---

That is true you do not have a statement of "Social Security is racist".

But you do have a reply that how Social Security is racist? "Life expectancy by race"

And that "that Social Security is functionally racist"

When the disproportional outcome is not "racist" necessarily is brought up by other posters ie

OsoCoreyell: Challense "Disparate impact is not racism.".

57Bear said: "SS code contain malevolent and/or racially motivated rules?.
BusyTarpDuster2018 makes their challenges.

You attempt to steer "racist/racism" to "Systemic racism" discussion.

In response to your:
"Instead, I have a statement of Social Security is an example of "systemic racism." I have also said it is a minor example and that redlining is a more direct example."

Where do you make this statement? You have not defined "Systemic racism". Or at least in terms of Social Security. -----You do have a statement of how it is "racist".

Your George Bush paragraph is just another attempt to steer the conversation.

---

I posted George Bush's statement because I found it interesting.
This has been a discussion of systemic racism from about the third post on the thread, with additional tangential discussion of Social Security. You seem to be missing about half of what I post, but I am disinclined to correct you on every point.

Try answering this instead. Is systemic racism, by whatever definition you want to offer, a problem in American society? Why or why not?

---

Why do you always try and steer things?

The "George Bush" sentence (I incorrectly called paragraph) I referenced was in your reply. I am aware of your original post.

I have read all your posts in this thread. I am not addressing all you posts in this thread.

I am specifically addressing your adding social security to the discussion.

Look if you would have articulated a general point of Social Security along the lines of

Social security's lack of present value of annuity payout to beneficiaries estates reduces wealth transference between generations. This significantly impacts races which have shorter life expectancy's. (ie. African Americans, and Hispanics).

Wealth transference between generations is a important components of closing "racial" wealth gap disparities and good for American Society.

I would not be responding so much.

"If you said anything along the lines Social Security does disproportionately impact African American men but it is not a example of "systematic racism". It is not racist. I was incorrect to say it does."

I would say I agree and lets discuss how systemic racism is a problem in American society and see how/if we can address it.

But, since you cant even admit that Social Security is not systemically racist/racism why would you expect anyone to engage with you seriously?

---

If one holds a definition of systemic racism that requires racist intent, either original or ongoing, then Social Security isn't "racist."I don't hold the view that intent is required.

OK. What is your trigger? You have not identified your definition.

You basically lay out an argument for why Social Security is an example of systemic racism under that view.

Explain.

Where have I "basically" laid out a argument to support the view the lack of "requires racist intent, either original or ongoing" supports the argument that Social Security is a example of systemic racism?

I didn't say it only requires racist intent, either original or ongoing, to prove systematic racism. I asked what else in your opinion is needed to prove systemic racism.

Post a quote of my argument.

You seem to think, however, that it is important that I agree with your view to have a reasonable discussion. It isn't.

Ok. If we frame the discussion binary, one from your point of view and one from my point of view would that be reasonable to have a discussion?


What kind of question is "Why do you always try to steer things?" That makes no sense at all. Like anyone else, I bring up points for discussion that I find interesting.

Ok. I will refrain from that question further.

It comes from your posts "As I have said several times, Social Security is a minor example." Ie. lets talk of something else.

"This is getting away from the my main point of the thread: systemic racism is a real thing that does not require racism, as defined by the belief that members of one race are superior to members of another race."

"but it doesn't seem anyone wants to talk about examples like redlining, which I have mentioned multiple times on this thread already."

Do you believe that systemic racism is a problem in American society, why or why not?

If as you said I do not have the same "definition" as you I cannot answer if I believe that systemic racism is a problem in American society"

I would say that there are "problems" in American society that need to be addressed for the "good of society". I do believe that past/historical laws, institutions, etc. have had both a positive and negative impact on today's society.

Again to the topic. What is the trigger for you that makes Social Security racist?

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

57Bear said:

---

... My point is that something doesn't have to be designed to be racist or have racist intent to have a racial effect. ...

If you view this to be a problem, do you have a proposed fix?

---

For Social Security, individual accounts.

---

Could you expand this some more for my understanding.

How would the individual account setup be run? Example?

---

Something similar to Galveston County.

---

Thanks.

IV Conclusion: Page 54.

"The relative value of benefits available under each system varies depending on earnings and family structure, and the length of time for which benefits are received."

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v62n2/v62n2p59.pdf

Please try reconcile that and your premise that social security is "Systemic Racism".

Would your fix (similar to Galveston County) not result in the exact same place as the justification you stated that makes Social Security systemically racist?

Your Post's before.

"Life expectancy by race. Retire, get less back before you die, on average, if you are African American. Systemic racism. Sexist, too, as women live longer than men."

"If you look at expected remaining lifespan at 50, you eliminate anyone who died earlier from violence. Social Security is a minor example of a program that that is immoral towards everyone, but does disproportionately impact African Americans."

It would appear that your example wouldn't fix the "issue".

Do you have any other proposed fixes?

Can it be fixed?

---

No, it would not "result in the same place."
When you have an individual account, your estate still has the money even if you die. It does not revert to the government.

---

There will be people who squander their account on bad investments. Accounts could be laid waste by a Black Swan. You & I know the government will rescue these folks with some safety net of last resort.

---

How would this differ from various 401k retirement accounts we have today?

---

1. Most people don't have one
2. Taxpayers will probably bail out government pension plans that are essentially insolvent
3. Everyone's 401 K plans are not equal. Some invest poorly and lose it all. What will you recommend when their nest egg is gone?

---

1. Everyone who has Social Security today would have one, and that's close enough.
2. It is not a defined benefit plan, there is nothing to bail out.
3. If you limit the investments options, as is pretty standard with these accounts, not one will "lose it all."

This is getting away from the my main point of the thread: systemic racism is a real thing that does not require racism, as defined by the belief that members of one race are superior to members of another race.

---

Social Security as your example of "Systemic Racism" is a major point of the thread introduced by you.

You in this tread have articulated

1) Racism was not designed in to the Social Security system to start with.

While there have been some claims that social security, in its original iteration, excluded a lot of African Americans, I have not seen any evidence that was done because of race. My point is that something doesn't have to be designed to be racist or have racist intent to have a racial effect. However, there are many better examples.

2) SS code doesn't contain malevolent and/or racially motivated rules.

57Bear said:" Does systemic racism have a generally accepted definition? Are you saying that the SS code contains malevolent and/or racially motivated rules?

D.C Bear "I doubt if there is just one definition of systemic racism. No, I am saying it doesn't"

3) "Racism" is not "any time there is disparity between race.", which doesn't support your original position
.
"Life expectancy by race. Retire, get less back before you die, on average, if you are African American. Systemic racism. Sexist, too, as women live longer than men."

4) So your remaining support of Social Security is "racist" and part of "systemic racism" is

"Systemic racism, however, does not require racism.".

5) "Systemic racism is a real thing" (your attempt to steer the discussion above) is a different argument than

Your post: "Systemic racism is real. Have you never heard of Social Security?"

and your response to RD2WINAGNBEAR86 question" Do please enlighten us about how Social Security is racist! (This should be good!)."

Your response:
"Life expectancy by race. Retire, get less back before you die, on average, if you are African American. Systemic racism. Sexist, too, as women live longer than men"

---

I think you are not seeing the forest for the trees.

Perhaps. Maybe I am not trying to steer the discussion away from Social Security is racist.

1. Racism and systemic racism are two very different concepts.

Yes. You have defined racism in your opinion in this thread.

Regarding "Systemic racism" you have responded "I doubt if there is just one definition of systemic racism" and "Systemic racism, however, does not require racism.".

So you haven't defined the concept.

So what is it regarding "systemic racism" as defined in the context of social security?

You originally said disproportional life expectancy.

2. Social Security is an example of something that isn't racist on its face displaying systemic racism. I have said (more than once) that it is a minor example, but it doesn't seem anyone wants to talk about examples like redlining, which I have mentioned multiple times on this thread already.

"Displaying systemic racism" (although not yet defined) does not mean that Social Security is racist. You have said it wasn't started as racist, doesn't contain malevolent or racially motivated rules.


Simple kids reasoning. Walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck = Duck.

You don't have" swims" or "quacks" to support = Duck.

How can we have a rational discussion about redlining when you will not redefine your statement of Social Security is racist?

3. Systemic racism may, alternatively, grow out of racism and may remain in place even when the racism that brought it about is gone.

We haven't defined "systemic racism" but how does this reconcile with Social Security when "there was no racism that brought it about" (as you said) in the first place?

---

---

Now, here is a question for you: do you believe that systemic racism is a real thing in American society?

---

Absolutely! I think one of the best examples of systemic racism is Affirmative Action.

---

A good argument can me made that you are correct on that. Why do you think affirmative action became a part of American society?

---

As deflections go, this could be post of the year

Give the man a door prize

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

57Bear said:

---

... My point is that something doesn't have to be designed to be racist or have racist intent to have a racial effect. ...

If you view this to be a problem, do you have a proposed fix?

---

For Social Security, individual accounts.

---

Could you expand this some more for my understanding.

How would the individual account setup be run? Example?

---

Something similar to Galveston County.

---

Thanks.

IV Conclusion: Page 54.

"The relative value of benefits available under each system varies depending on earnings and family structure, and the length of time for which benefits are received."

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v62n2/v62n2p59.pdf

Please try reconcile that and your premise that social security is "Systemic Racism".

Would your fix (similar to Galveston County) not result in the exact same place as the justification you stated that makes Social Security systemically racist?

Your Post's before.

"Life expectancy by race. Retire, get less back before you die, on average, if you are African American. Systemic racism. Sexist, too, as women live longer than men."

"If you look at expected remaining lifespan at 50, you eliminate anyone who died earlier from violence. Social Security is a minor example of a program that that is immoral towards everyone, but does disproportionately impact African Americans."

It would appear that your example wouldn't fix the "issue".

Do you have any other proposed fixes?

Can it be fixed?

---

No, it would not "result in the same place."
When you have an individual account, your estate still has the money even if you die. It does not revert to the government.

---

There will be people who squander their account on bad investments. Accounts could be laid waste by a Black Swan. You & I know the government will rescue these folks with some safety net of last resort.

---

How would this differ from various 401k retirement accounts we have today?

---

1. Most people don't have one
2. Taxpayers will probably bail out government pension plans that are essentially insolvent
3. Everyone's 401 K plans are not equal. Some invest poorly and lose it all. What will you recommend when their nest egg is gone?

---

1. Everyone who has Social Security today would have one, and that's close enough.
2. It is not a defined benefit plan, there is nothing to bail out.
3. If you limit the investments options, as is pretty standard with these accounts, not one will "lose it all."

This is getting away from the my main point of the thread: systemic racism is a real thing that does not require racism, as defined by the belief that members of one race are superior to members of another race.

---

Social Security as your example of "Systemic Racism" is a major point of the thread introduced by you.

You in this tread have articulated

1) Racism was not designed in to the Social Security system to start with.

While there have been some claims that social security, in its original iteration, excluded a lot of African Americans, I have not seen any evidence that was done because of race. My point is that something doesn't have to be designed to be racist or have racist intent to have a racial effect. However, there are many better examples.

2) SS code doesn't contain malevolent and/or racially motivated rules.

57Bear said:" Does systemic racism have a generally accepted definition? Are you saying that the SS code contains malevolent and/or racially motivated rules?

D.C Bear "I doubt if there is just one definition of systemic racism. No, I am saying it doesn't"

3) "Racism" is not "any time there is disparity between race.", which doesn't support your original position
.
"Life expectancy by race. Retire, get less back before you die, on average, if you are African American. Systemic racism. Sexist, too, as women live longer than men."

4) So your remaining support of Social Security is "racist" and part of "systemic racism" is

"Systemic racism, however, does not require racism.".

5) "Systemic racism is a real thing" (your attempt to steer the discussion above) is a different argument than

Your post: "Systemic racism is real. Have you never heard of Social Security?"

and your response to RD2WINAGNBEAR86 question" Do please enlighten us about how Social Security is racist! (This should be good!)."

Your response:
"Life expectancy by race. Retire, get less back before you die, on average, if you are African American. Systemic racism. Sexist, too, as women live longer than men"

---

I think you are not seeing the forest for the trees.

Perhaps. Maybe I am not trying to steer the discussion away from Social Security is racist.

1. Racism and systemic racism are two very different concepts.

Yes. You have defined racism in your opinion in this thread.

Regarding "Systemic racism" you have responded "I doubt if there is just one definition of systemic racism" and "Systemic racism, however, does not require racism.".

So you haven't defined the concept.

So what is it regarding "systemic racism" as defined in the context of social security?

You originally said disproportional life expectancy.

2. Social Security is an example of something that isn't racist on its face displaying systemic racism. I have said (more than once) that it is a minor example, but it doesn't seem anyone wants to talk about examples like redlining, which I have mentioned multiple times on this thread already.

"Displaying systemic racism" (although not yet defined) does not mean that Social Security is racist. You have said it wasn't started as racist, doesn't contain malevolent or racially motivated rules.


Simple kids reasoning. Walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck = Duck.

You don't have" swims" or "quacks" to support = Duck.

How can we have a rational discussion about redlining when you will not redefine your statement of Social Security is racist?

3. Systemic racism may, alternatively, grow out of racism and may remain in place even when the racism that brought it about is gone.

We haven't defined "systemic racism" but how does this reconcile with Social Security when "there was no racism that brought it about" (as you said) in the first place?

---

---

It is important to differentiate between racism and systemic racism. You are apparently not seeing a difference between racism and systemic racism, so you are asking "How can we have a rational discussion about redlining when you will not redefine your statement of Social Security is racist?" However, I do not have a statement of "Social Security is racist." Instead, I have a statement of Social Security is an example of "systemic racism." I have also said it is a minor example and that redlining is a more direct example.

The entire discussion is a response to a claim that George W. Bush is the second soon to be declared the second worst president because he used the term "systemic racism" in his statement.

Now, here is a question for you: do you believe that systemic racism is a real thing in American society?

---

That is true you do not have a statement of "Social Security is racist".

But you do have a reply that how Social Security is racist? "Life expectancy by race"

And that "that Social Security is functionally racist"

When the disproportional outcome is not "racist" necessarily is brought up by other posters ie

OsoCoreyell: Challense "Disparate impact is not racism.".

57Bear said: "SS code contain malevolent and/or racially motivated rules?.
BusyTarpDuster2018 makes their challenges.

You attempt to steer "racist/racism" to "Systemic racism" discussion.

In response to your:
"Instead, I have a statement of Social Security is an example of "systemic racism." I have also said it is a minor example and that redlining is a more direct example."

Where do you make this statement? You have not defined "Systemic racism". Or at least in terms of Social Security. -----You do have a statement of how it is "racist".

Your George Bush paragraph is just another attempt to steer the conversation.

---

I posted George Bush's statement because I found it interesting.
This has been a discussion of systemic racism from about the third post on the thread, with additional tangential discussion of Social Security. You seem to be missing about half of what I post, but I am disinclined to correct you on every point.

Try answering this instead. Is systemic racism, by whatever definition you want to offer, a problem in American society? Why or why not?

---

Why do you always try and steer things?

The "George Bush" sentence (I incorrectly called paragraph) I referenced was in your reply. I am aware of your original post.

I have read all your posts in this thread. I am not addressing all you posts in this thread.

I am specifically addressing your adding social security to the discussion.

Look if you would have articulated a general point of Social Security along the lines of

Social security's lack of present value of annuity payout to beneficiaries estates reduces wealth transference between generations. This significantly impacts races which have shorter life expectancy's. (ie. African Americans, and Hispanics).

Wealth transference between generations is a important components of closing "racial" wealth gap disparities and good for American Society.

I would not be responding so much.

"If you said anything along the lines Social Security does disproportionately impact African American men but it is not a example of "systematic racism". It is not racist. I was incorrect to say it does."

I would say I agree and lets discuss how systemic racism is a problem in American society and see how/if we can address it.

But, since you cant even admit that Social Security is not systemically racist/racism why would you expect anyone to engage with you seriously?

---

If one holds a definition of systemic racism that requires racist intent, either original or ongoing, then Social Security isn't "racist."I don't hold the view that intent is required.

OK. What is your trigger? You have not identified your definition.

You basically lay out an argument for why Social Security is an example of systemic racism under that view.

Explain.

Where have I "basically" laid out a argument to support the view the lack of "requires racist intent, either original or ongoing" supports the argument that Social Security is a example of systemic racism?

I didn't say it only requires racist intent, either original or ongoing, to prove systematic racism. I asked what else in your opinion is needed to prove systemic racism.

Post a quote of my argument.

You seem to think, however, that it is important that I agree with your view to have a reasonable discussion. It isn't.

Ok. If we frame the discussion binary, one from your point of view and one from my point of view would that be reasonable to have a discussion?


What kind of question is "Why do you always try to steer things?" That makes no sense at all. Like anyone else, I bring up points for discussion that I find interesting.

Ok. I will refrain from that question further.

It comes from your posts "As I have said several times, Social Security is a minor example." Ie. lets talk of something else.

"This is getting away from the my main point of the thread: systemic racism is a real thing that does not require racism, as defined by the belief that members of one race are superior to members of another race."

"but it doesn't seem anyone wants to talk about examples like redlining, which I have mentioned multiple times on this thread already."

Do you believe that systemic racism is a problem in American society, why or why not?

If as you said I do not have the same "definition" as you I cannot answer if I believe that systemic racism is a problem in American society"

I would say that there are "problems" in American society that need to be addressed for the "good of society". I do believe that past/historical laws, institutions, etc. have had both a positive and negative impact on today's society.

Again to the topic. What is the trigger for you that makes Social Security racist?

---

---

1. How many time do I need to repeat the concept that a program can be an example of systemic racism without the people who designed it having racist intent? I like the example of Social Security because it is counter intuitive.

2. You don't have to have the same definition I do, just answer the question based on your definition. Do you think systemic racism is a real aspect of American society or not? Why or why not?

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

57Bear said:

---

... My point is that something doesn't have to be designed to be racist or have racist intent to have a racial effect. ...

If you view this to be a problem, do you have a proposed fix?

---

For Social Security, individual accounts.

---

Could you expand this some more for my understanding.

How would the individual account setup be run? Example?

---

Something similar to Galveston County.

---

Thanks.

IV Conclusion: Page 54.

"The relative value of benefits available under each system varies depending on earnings and family structure, and the length of time for which benefits are received."

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v62n2/v62n2p59.pdf

Please try reconcile that and your premise that social security is "Systemic Racism".

Would your fix (similar to Galveston County) not result in the exact same place as the justification you stated that makes Social Security systemically racist?

Your Post's before.

"Life expectancy by race. Retire, get less back before you die, on average, if you are African American. Systemic racism. Sexist, too, as women live longer than men."

"If you look at expected remaining lifespan at 50, you eliminate anyone who died earlier from violence. Social Security is a minor example of a program that that is immoral towards everyone, but does disproportionately impact African Americans."

It would appear that your example wouldn't fix the "issue".

Do you have any other proposed fixes?

Can it be fixed?

---

No, it would not "result in the same place."
When you have an individual account, your estate still has the money even if you die. It does not revert to the government.

---

There will be people who squander their account on bad investments. Accounts could be laid waste by a Black Swan. You & I know the government will rescue these folks with some safety net of last resort.

---

How would this differ from various 401k retirement accounts we have today?

---

1. Most people don't have one
2. Taxpayers will probably bail out government pension plans that are essentially insolvent
3. Everyone's 401 K plans are not equal. Some invest poorly and lose it all. What will you recommend when their nest egg is gone?

---

1. Everyone who has Social Security today would have one, and that's close enough.
2. It is not a defined benefit plan, there is nothing to bail out.
3. If you limit the investments options, as is pretty standard with these accounts, not one will "lose it all."

This is getting away from the my main point of the thread: systemic racism is a real thing that does not require racism, as defined by the belief that members of one race are superior to members of another race.

---

Social Security as your example of "Systemic Racism" is a major point of the thread introduced by you.

You in this tread have articulated

1) Racism was not designed in to the Social Security system to start with.

While there have been some claims that social security, in its original iteration, excluded a lot of African Americans, I have not seen any evidence that was done because of race. My point is that something doesn't have to be designed to be racist or have racist intent to have a racial effect. However, there are many better examples.

2) SS code doesn't contain malevolent and/or racially motivated rules.

57Bear said:" Does systemic racism have a generally accepted definition? Are you saying that the SS code contains malevolent and/or racially motivated rules?

D.C Bear "I doubt if there is just one definition of systemic racism. No, I am saying it doesn't"

3) "Racism" is not "any time there is disparity between race.", which doesn't support your original position
.
"Life expectancy by race. Retire, get less back before you die, on average, if you are African American. Systemic racism. Sexist, too, as women live longer than men."

4) So your remaining support of Social Security is "racist" and part of "systemic racism" is

"Systemic racism, however, does not require racism.".

5) "Systemic racism is a real thing" (your attempt to steer the discussion above) is a different argument than

Your post: "Systemic racism is real. Have you never heard of Social Security?"

and your response to RD2WINAGNBEAR86 question" Do please enlighten us about how Social Security is racist! (This should be good!)."

Your response:
"Life expectancy by race. Retire, get less back before you die, on average, if you are African American. Systemic racism. Sexist, too, as women live longer than men"

---

I think you are not seeing the forest for the trees.

Perhaps. Maybe I am not trying to steer the discussion away from Social Security is racist.

1. Racism and systemic racism are two very different concepts.

Yes. You have defined racism in your opinion in this thread.

Regarding "Systemic racism" you have responded "I doubt if there is just one definition of systemic racism" and "Systemic racism, however, does not require racism.".

So you haven't defined the concept.

So what is it regarding "systemic racism" as defined in the context of social security?

You originally said disproportional life expectancy.

2. Social Security is an example of something that isn't racist on its face displaying systemic racism. I have said (more than once) that it is a minor example, but it doesn't seem anyone wants to talk about examples like redlining, which I have mentioned multiple times on this thread already.

"Displaying systemic racism" (although not yet defined) does not mean that Social Security is racist. You have said it wasn't started as racist, doesn't contain malevolent or racially motivated rules.


Simple kids reasoning. Walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck = Duck.

You don't have" swims" or "quacks" to support = Duck.

How can we have a rational discussion about redlining when you will not redefine your statement of Social Security is racist?

3. Systemic racism may, alternatively, grow out of racism and may remain in place even when the racism that brought it about is gone.

We haven't defined "systemic racism" but how does this reconcile with Social Security when "there was no racism that brought it about" (as you said) in the first place?

---

---

It is important to differentiate between racism and systemic racism. You are apparently not seeing a difference between racism and systemic racism, so you are asking "How can we have a rational discussion about redlining when you will not redefine your statement of Social Security is racist?" However, I do not have a statement of "Social Security is racist." Instead, I have a statement of Social Security is an example of "systemic racism." I have also said it is a minor example and that redlining is a more direct example.

The entire discussion is a response to a claim that George W. Bush is the second soon to be declared the second worst president because he used the term "systemic racism" in his statement.

Now, here is a question for you: do you believe that systemic racism is a real thing in American society?

---

That is true you do not have a statement of "Social Security is racist".

But you do have a reply that how Social Security is racist? "Life expectancy by race"

And that "that Social Security is functionally racist"

When the disproportional outcome is not "racist" necessarily is brought up by other posters ie

OsoCoreyell: Challense "Disparate impact is not racism.".

57Bear said: "SS code contain malevolent and/or racially motivated rules?.
BusyTarpDuster2018 makes their challenges.

You attempt to steer "racist/racism" to "Systemic racism" discussion.

In response to your:
"Instead, I have a statement of Social Security is an example of "systemic racism." I have also said it is a minor example and that redlining is a more direct example."

Where do you make this statement? You have not defined "Systemic racism". Or at least in terms of Social Security. -----You do have a statement of how it is "racist".

Your George Bush paragraph is just another attempt to steer the conversation.

---

I posted George Bush's statement because I found it interesting.
This has been a discussion of systemic racism from about the third post on the thread, with additional tangential discussion of Social Security. You seem to be missing about half of what I post, but I am disinclined to correct you on every point.

Try answering this instead. Is systemic racism, by whatever definition you want to offer, a problem in American society? Why or why not?

---

Why do you always try and steer things?

The "George Bush" sentence (I incorrectly called paragraph) I referenced was in your reply. I am aware of your original post.

I have read all your posts in this thread. I am not addressing all you posts in this thread.

I am specifically addressing your adding social security to the discussion.

Look if you would have articulated a general point of Social Security along the lines of

Social security's lack of present value of annuity payout to beneficiaries estates reduces wealth transference between generations. This significantly impacts races which have shorter life expectancy's. (ie. African Americans, and Hispanics).

Wealth transference between generations is a important components of closing "racial" wealth gap disparities and good for American Society.

I would not be responding so much.

"If you said anything along the lines Social Security does disproportionately impact African American men but it is not a example of "systematic racism". It is not racist. I was incorrect to say it does."

I would say I agree and lets discuss how systemic racism is a problem in American society and see how/if we can address it.

But, since you cant even admit that Social Security is not systemically racist/racism why would you expect anyone to engage with you seriously?

---

If one holds a definition of systemic racism that requires racist intent, either original or ongoing, then Social Security isn't "racist."I don't hold the view that intent is required.

OK. What is your trigger? You have not identified your definition.

You basically lay out an argument for why Social Security is an example of systemic racism under that view.

Explain.

Where have I "basically" laid out a argument to support the view the lack of "requires racist intent, either original or ongoing" supports the argument that Social Security is a example of systemic racism?

I didn't say it only requires racist intent, either original or ongoing, to prove systematic racism. I asked what else in your opinion is needed to prove systemic racism.

Post a quote of my argument.

You seem to think, however, that it is important that I agree with your view to have a reasonable discussion. It isn't.

Ok. If we frame the discussion binary, one from your point of view and one from my point of view would that be reasonable to have a discussion?


What kind of question is "Why do you always try to steer things?" That makes no sense at all. Like anyone else, I bring up points for discussion that I find interesting.

Ok. I will refrain from that question further.

It comes from your posts "As I have said several times, Social Security is a minor example." Ie. lets talk of something else.

"This is getting away from the my main point of the thread: systemic racism is a real thing that does not require racism, as defined by the belief that members of one race are superior to members of another race."

"but it doesn't seem anyone wants to talk about examples like redlining, which I have mentioned multiple times on this thread already."

Do you believe that systemic racism is a problem in American society, why or why not?

If as you said I do not have the same "definition" as you I cannot answer if I believe that systemic racism is a problem in American society"

I would say that there are "problems" in American society that need to be addressed for the "good of society". I do believe that past/historical laws, institutions, etc. have had both a positive and negative impact on today's society.

Again to the topic. What is the trigger for you that makes Social Security racist?

---

---

1. How many time do I need to repeat the concept that a program can be an example of systemic racism without the people who designed it having racist intent? I like the example of Social Security because it is counter intuitive.

2. You don't have to have the same definition I do, just answer the question based on your definition. Do you think systemic racism is a real aspect of American society or not? Why or why not?

---

About as many times as I have tried to have you address it as "racist" (provided your definition posted) and not address it as "systemic racism" (which you have not defined).

I completely understand the concept that an example of systemic racism does not need people to have racist intent when it was designed.

I do not believe Social Security is an example.

Yes. Systemic racism is a real aspect of American society. Why? Because there are examples of current government agency programs that deem an individual meeting a requirement automatically because that individual is of a member of a particular group (race).

Can systemic racism be "addressed" without systemic racism in American society?

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

57Bear said:

---

... My point is that something doesn't have to be designed to be racist or have racist intent to have a racial effect. ...

If you view this to be a problem, do you have a proposed fix?

---

For Social Security, individual accounts.

---

Could you expand this some more for my understanding.

How would the individual account setup be run? Example?

---

Something similar to Galveston County.

---

Thanks.

IV Conclusion: Page 54.

"The relative value of benefits available under each system varies depending on earnings and family structure, and the length of time for which benefits are received."

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v62n2/v62n2p59.pdf

Please try reconcile that and your premise that social security is "Systemic Racism".

Would your fix (similar to Galveston County) not result in the exact same place as the justification you stated that makes Social Security systemically racist?

Your Post's before.

"Life expectancy by race. Retire, get less back before you die, on average, if you are African American. Systemic racism. Sexist, too, as women live longer than men."

"If you look at expected remaining lifespan at 50, you eliminate anyone who died earlier from violence. Social Security is a minor example of a program that that is immoral towards everyone, but does disproportionately impact African Americans."

It would appear that your example wouldn't fix the "issue".

Do you have any other proposed fixes?

Can it be fixed?

---

No, it would not "result in the same place."
When you have an individual account, your estate still has the money even if you die. It does not revert to the government.

---

There will be people who squander their account on bad investments. Accounts could be laid waste by a Black Swan. You & I know the government will rescue these folks with some safety net of last resort.

---

How would this differ from various 401k retirement accounts we have today?

---

1. Most people don't have one
2. Taxpayers will probably bail out government pension plans that are essentially insolvent
3. Everyone's 401 K plans are not equal. Some invest poorly and lose it all. What will you recommend when their nest egg is gone?

---

1. Everyone who has Social Security today would have one, and that's close enough.
2. It is not a defined benefit plan, there is nothing to bail out.
3. If you limit the investments options, as is pretty standard with these accounts, not one will "lose it all."

This is getting away from the my main point of the thread: systemic racism is a real thing that does not require racism, as defined by the belief that members of one race are superior to members of another race.

---

Social Security as your example of "Systemic Racism" is a major point of the thread introduced by you.

You in this tread have articulated

1) Racism was not designed in to the Social Security system to start with.

While there have been some claims that social security, in its original iteration, excluded a lot of African Americans, I have not seen any evidence that was done because of race. My point is that something doesn't have to be designed to be racist or have racist intent to have a racial effect. However, there are many better examples.

2) SS code doesn't contain malevolent and/or racially motivated rules.

57Bear said:" Does systemic racism have a generally accepted definition? Are you saying that the SS code contains malevolent and/or racially motivated rules?

D.C Bear "I doubt if there is just one definition of systemic racism. No, I am saying it doesn't"

3) "Racism" is not "any time there is disparity between race.", which doesn't support your original position
.
"Life expectancy by race. Retire, get less back before you die, on average, if you are African American. Systemic racism. Sexist, too, as women live longer than men."

4) So your remaining support of Social Security is "racist" and part of "systemic racism" is

"Systemic racism, however, does not require racism.".

5) "Systemic racism is a real thing" (your attempt to steer the discussion above) is a different argument than

Your post: "Systemic racism is real. Have you never heard of Social Security?"

and your response to RD2WINAGNBEAR86 question" Do please enlighten us about how Social Security is racist! (This should be good!)."

Your response:
"Life expectancy by race. Retire, get less back before you die, on average, if you are African American. Systemic racism. Sexist, too, as women live longer than men"

---

I think you are not seeing the forest for the trees.

Perhaps. Maybe I am not trying to steer the discussion away from Social Security is racist.

1. Racism and systemic racism are two very different concepts.

Yes. You have defined racism in your opinion in this thread.

Regarding "Systemic racism" you have responded "I doubt if there is just one definition of systemic racism" and "Systemic racism, however, does not require racism.".

So you haven't defined the concept.

So what is it regarding "systemic racism" as defined in the context of social security?

You originally said disproportional life expectancy.

2. Social Security is an example of something that isn't racist on its face displaying systemic racism. I have said (more than once) that it is a minor example, but it doesn't seem anyone wants to talk about examples like redlining, which I have mentioned multiple times on this thread already.

"Displaying systemic racism" (although not yet defined) does not mean that Social Security is racist. You have said it wasn't started as racist, doesn't contain malevolent or racially motivated rules.


Simple kids reasoning. Walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck = Duck.

You don't have" swims" or "quacks" to support = Duck.

How can we have a rational discussion about redlining when you will not redefine your statement of Social Security is racist?

3. Systemic racism may, alternatively, grow out of racism and may remain in place even when the racism that brought it about is gone.

We haven't defined "systemic racism" but how does this reconcile with Social Security when "there was no racism that brought it about" (as you said) in the first place?

---

---

It is important to differentiate between racism and systemic racism. You are apparently not seeing a difference between racism and systemic racism, so you are asking "How can we have a rational discussion about redlining when you will not redefine your statement of Social Security is racist?" However, I do not have a statement of "Social Security is racist." Instead, I have a statement of Social Security is an example of "systemic racism." I have also said it is a minor example and that redlining is a more direct example.

The entire discussion is a response to a claim that George W. Bush is the second soon to be declared the second worst president because he used the term "systemic racism" in his statement.

Now, here is a question for you: do you believe that systemic racism is a real thing in American society?

---

That is true you do not have a statement of "Social Security is racist".

But you do have a reply that how Social Security is racist? "Life expectancy by race"

And that "that Social Security is functionally racist"

When the disproportional outcome is not "racist" necessarily is brought up by other posters ie

OsoCoreyell: Challense "Disparate impact is not racism.".

57Bear said: "SS code contain malevolent and/or racially motivated rules?.
BusyTarpDuster2018 makes their challenges.

You attempt to steer "racist/racism" to "Systemic racism" discussion.

In response to your:
"Instead, I have a statement of Social Security is an example of "systemic racism." I have also said it is a minor example and that redlining is a more direct example."

Where do you make this statement? You have not defined "Systemic racism". Or at least in terms of Social Security. -----You do have a statement of how it is "racist".

Your George Bush paragraph is just another attempt to steer the conversation.

---

I posted George Bush's statement because I found it interesting.
This has been a discussion of systemic racism from about the third post on the thread, with additional tangential discussion of Social Security. You seem to be missing about half of what I post, but I am disinclined to correct you on every point.

Try answering this instead. Is systemic racism, by whatever definition you want to offer, a problem in American society? Why or why not?

---

Why do you always try and steer things?

The "George Bush" sentence (I incorrectly called paragraph) I referenced was in your reply. I am aware of your original post.

I have read all your posts in this thread. I am not addressing all you posts in this thread.

I am specifically addressing your adding social security to the discussion.

Look if you would have articulated a general point of Social Security along the lines of

Social security's lack of present value of annuity payout to beneficiaries estates reduces wealth transference between generations. This significantly impacts races which have shorter life expectancy's. (ie. African Americans, and Hispanics).

Wealth transference between generations is a important components of closing "racial" wealth gap disparities and good for American Society.

I would not be responding so much.

"If you said anything along the lines Social Security does disproportionately impact African American men but it is not a example of "systematic racism". It is not racist. I was incorrect to say it does."

I would say I agree and lets discuss how systemic racism is a problem in American society and see how/if we can address it.

But, since you cant even admit that Social Security is not systemically racist/racism why would you expect anyone to engage with you seriously?

---

If one holds a definition of systemic racism that requires racist intent, either original or ongoing, then Social Security isn't "racist."I don't hold the view that intent is required.

OK. What is your trigger? You have not identified your definition.

You basically lay out an argument for why Social Security is an example of systemic racism under that view.

Explain.

Where have I "basically" laid out a argument to support the view the lack of "requires racist intent, either original or ongoing" supports the argument that Social Security is a example of systemic racism?

I didn't say it only requires racist intent, either original or ongoing, to prove systematic racism. I asked what else in your opinion is needed to prove systemic racism.

Post a quote of my argument.

You seem to think, however, that it is important that I agree with your view to have a reasonable discussion. It isn't.

Ok. If we frame the discussion binary, one from your point of view and one from my point of view would that be reasonable to have a discussion?


What kind of question is "Why do you always try to steer things?" That makes no sense at all. Like anyone else, I bring up points for discussion that I find interesting.

Ok. I will refrain from that question further.

It comes from your posts "As I have said several times, Social Security is a minor example." Ie. lets talk of something else.

"This is getting away from the my main point of the thread: systemic racism is a real thing that does not require racism, as defined by the belief that members of one race are superior to members of another race."

"but it doesn't seem anyone wants to talk about examples like redlining, which I have mentioned multiple times on this thread already."

Do you believe that systemic racism is a problem in American society, why or why not?

If as you said I do not have the same "definition" as you I cannot answer if I believe that systemic racism is a problem in American society"

I would say that there are "problems" in American society that need to be addressed for the "good of society". I do believe that past/historical laws, institutions, etc. have had both a positive and negative impact on today's society.

Again to the topic. What is the trigger for you that makes Social Security racist?

---

---

1. How many time do I need to repeat the concept that a program can be an example of systemic racism without the people who designed it having racist intent? I like the example of Social Security because it is counter intuitive.

2. You don't have to have the same definition I do, just answer the question based on your definition. Do you think systemic racism is a real aspect of American society or not? Why or why not?

---

About as many times as I have tried to have you address it as "racist" (provided your definition posted) and not address it as "systemic racism" (which you have not defined).

I completely understand the concept that an example of systemic racism does not need people to have racist intent when it was designed.

I do not believe Social Security is an example.

Yes. Systemic racism is a real aspect of American society. Why? Because there are examples of current government agency programs that deem an individual meeting a requirement automatically because that individual is of a member of a particular group (race).

Can systemic racism be "addressed" without systemic racism in American society?

---

I am fine with you not believing that Social Security is an example of systemic racism.

What are the particular programs today that you have in mind today that show systemic racism?

What particular "systemic racism" are you asking about in the bolded question above?

I am fine with you not believing that Social Security is an example of systemic racism.

What are the particular programs today that you have in mind today that show systemic racism?

SBA 8(a) Business Development Program.

What particular "systemic racism" are you asking about in the bolded question above?

Whatever definition you prefer. My question has more to do with American Society and its view of systemic racism.

For example. Affirmative Action (unagreed definition but you posted ("good argument" could be made for example of systemic racism).

Do you think that in American Society today we could remove affirmative action?

Sorry, DC Bear, but if you insist on defining systemic racism without there even needing to be racism, you are in your own little world and you'll only be having parallel discussions with others, because no rational person is gonna buy that.

Bruce Leroy said:

---

I am fine with you not believing that Social Security is an example of systemic racism.

What are the particular programs today that you have in mind today that show systemic racism?

SBA 8(a) Business Development Program.

What particular "systemic racism" are you asking about in the bolded question above?

Whatever definition you prefer. My question has more to do with American Society and its view of systemic racism.

For example. Affirmative Action (unagreed definition but you posted ("good argument" could be made for example of systemic racism).

Do you think that in American Society today we could remove affirmative action?

---

Yes, we could remove "affirmative action."
SBA 8(a) Business Development Program has a variety of requirements that do not involve being a member of a particular group. (Note that I am not saying it doesn't show systemic racism, just that it requires more than membership in a group to qualify).

Do you think there is anything today that represents systemic racism against African Americans?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sorry, DC Bear, but if you insist on defining systemic racism without there even needing to be racism, you are in your own little world and you'll only be having parallel discussions with others, because no rational person is gonna buy that.

---

Systemic racism can remain even after the racism that created it is gone.
Significant race-based disadvantages can occur without any racist intent on the part of policy makers.

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sorry, DC Bear, but if you insist on defining systemic racism without there even needing to be racism, you are in your own little world and you'll only be having parallel discussions with others, because no rational person is gonna buy that.

---

Systemic racism can remain even after the racism that created it is gone.
Significant race-based disadvantages can occur without any racist intent on the part of policy makers.

---

Your first point requires racism to have existed, so it belies your definition.

Unless there is codified or procedural discrimination and prejudicial action based on race, any disparate outcome between races due to a policy is not "race-based", but rather "race-correlative". Correlation is not causation.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

I am fine with you not believing that Social Security is an example of systemic racism.

What are the particular programs today that you have in mind today that show systemic racism?

SBA 8(a) Business Development Program.

What particular "systemic racism" are you asking about in the bolded question above?

Whatever definition you prefer. My question has more to do with American Society and its view of systemic racism.

For example. Affirmative Action (unagreed definition but you posted ("good argument" could be made for example of systemic racism).

Do you think that in American Society today we could remove affirmative action?

---

Yes, we could remove "affirmative action."
SBA 8(a) Business Development Program has a variety of requirements that do not involve being a member of a particular group. (Note that I am not saying it doesn't show systemic racism, just that it requires more than membership in a group to qualify).

Do you think there is anything today that represents systemic racism against African Americans?

---

Yes, SBA 8 (a) does have multiple requirements.

Can you ask the "Do you think there is anything today that represents systemic racism against African Americans?" In a different way. I read it a couple different ways.

On way was.

Is there systemic racism against African Americans Today (2020)? It is possible (Criminal justice may be a area to study) but I am unaware of a example in my current definition of systemic racism.

or
Are there things in the past that "represents" systemic racism against African Americans? Yes, in my opinion there were policies that were based on racism and today those polices represent examples of past systemic racism against African Americans.

How in your opinion could we remove Affirmative Action?

I was thinking of the social ramifications of attempting to do so and how it would affect the process.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sorry, DC Bear, but if you insist on defining systemic racism without there even needing to be racism, you are in your own little world and you'll only be having parallel discussions with others, because no rational person is gonna buy that.

---

Systemic racism can remain even after the racism that created it is gone.
Significant race-based disadvantages can occur without any racist intent on the part of policy makers.

---

Your first point requires racism to have existed, so it belies your definition.

Unless there is codified or procedural discrimination and prejudicial action based on race, any disparate outcome between races due to a policy is not "race-based", but rather "race-correlative". Correlation is not causation.

---

It doesn't "belie my definition," there are three ways systemic racism can be manifested, two of which I discuss here. One is through residual effects of intentional racist policies and one is through accidental effects of policies that were not intentionally racist. (The third, quite obviously, is the effects of current intentionally racist policies).

Call it "race-correlative" if you like, there is little practical difference.

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sorry, DC Bear, but if you insist on defining systemic racism without there even needing to be racism, you are in your own little world and you'll only be having parallel discussions with others, because no rational person is gonna buy that.

---

Systemic racism can remain even after the racism that created it is gone.
Significant race-based disadvantages can occur without any racist intent on the part of policy makers.

---

Your first point requires racism to have existed, so it belies your definition.

Unless there is codified or procedural discrimination and prejudicial action based on race, any disparate outcome between races due to a policy is not "race-based", but rather "race-correlative". Correlation is not causation.

---

It doesn't "belie my definition," there are three ways systemic racism can be manifested, two of which I discuss here. One is through residual effects of intentional racist policies and one is through accidental effects of policies that were not intentionally racist. (The third, quite obviously, is the effects of current intentionally racist policies).

Call it "race-correlative" if you like, there is little practical difference.

---

Residual effects of an intentionally racist policy that is no longer existing is not systemic racism, but rather the effects of systemic racism that no longer exists. This is another one of your absurd assertions that no one is buying.

Being "race-correlative" means all the difference in the world - if race isn't the cause, but rather the correlation, then there are other variables that explain the disparate outcome, not race. Therefore, calling it systemic racism would be a misnomer, and a highly dubious characterization. Again, something people are just not buying.

Yes, even if policies were not intentionally racist, they can still be racist if there is unintentional, but yet present, codified and/or procedural discrimination and prejudicial action based on race. Bottom line.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sorry, DC Bear, but if you insist on defining systemic racism without there even needing to be racism, you are in your own little world and you'll only be having parallel discussions with others, because no rational person is gonna buy that.

---

Systemic racism can remain even after the racism that created it is gone.
Significant race-based disadvantages can occur without any racist intent on the part of policy makers.

---

Your first point requires racism to have existed, so it belies your definition.

Unless there is codified or procedural discrimination and prejudicial action based on race, any disparate outcome between races due to a policy is not "race-based", but rather "race-correlative". Correlation is not causation.

---

It doesn't "belie my definition," there are three ways systemic racism can be manifested, two of which I discuss here. One is through residual effects of intentional racist policies and one is through accidental effects of policies that were not intentionally racist. (The third, quite obviously, is the effects of current intentionally racist policies).

Call it "race-correlative" if you like, there is little practical difference.

---

Residual effects of an intentionally racist policy that is no longer existing is not systemic racism, but rather the effects of systemic racism that no longer exists. This is another one of your absurd assertions that no one is buying.

Being "race-correlative" means all the difference in the world - if race isn't the cause, but rather the correlation, then there are other variables that explain the disparate outcome, not race. Therefore, calling it systemic racism would be a misnomer, and a highly dubious characterization. Again, something people are just not buying.

Yes, even if policies were not intentionally racist, they can still be racist if there is unintentional, but yet present, codified and/or procedural discrimination and prejudicial action based on race. Bottom line.

---

"People" are just not buying?

You simply asserting a definition doesn't mean other people accept your definition any more than you accept theirs. People can disagree about definitions. While you say "Residual effects of an intentionally racist policy that is no longer existing is not systemic racism," others say that it doesn't even have to have an intentionally racist origin to be systemic racism.

For example, here is something about hockey from a Canadian website doesn't meet your definition at all:

"There is no explicit policy that excludes people of colour and Indigenous people from participating in organized hockey, yet there are few players of colour/Indigenous players. What is it that keeps organized hockey 'white'?

Playing hockey is expensive (fees and gear), time consuming for families, requires transportation and an accommodating work schedule, and in Alberta is conducted in English. While there is no 'intent' to exclude non-English speaking, lower-income, shift-working, single-parent families from playing organized hockey, the system is designed by and for middle-class, professional white families."

So, bottom line, claiming that "people aren't buying" a definition that differs from your own is not supported by evidence.

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sorry, DC Bear, but if you insist on defining systemic racism without there even needing to be racism, you are in your own little world and you'll only be having parallel discussions with others, because no rational person is gonna buy that.

---

Systemic racism can remain even after the racism that created it is gone.
Significant race-based disadvantages can occur without any racist intent on the part of policy makers.

---

Your first point requires racism to have existed, so it belies your definition.

Unless there is codified or procedural discrimination and prejudicial action based on race, any disparate outcome between races due to a policy is not "race-based", but rather "race-correlative". Correlation is not causation.

---

It doesn't "belie my definition," there are three ways systemic racism can be manifested, two of which I discuss here. One is through residual effects of intentional racist policies and one is through accidental effects of policies that were not intentionally racist. (The third, quite obviously, is the effects of current intentionally racist policies).

Call it "race-correlative" if you like, there is little practical difference.

---

Residual effects of an intentionally racist policy that is no longer existing is not systemic racism, but rather the effects of systemic racism that no longer exists. This is another one of your absurd assertions that no one is buying.

Being "race-correlative" means all the difference in the world - if race isn't the cause, but rather the correlation, then there are other variables that explain the disparate outcome, not race. Therefore, calling it systemic racism would be a misnomer, and a highly dubious characterization. Again, something people are just not buying.

Yes, even if policies were not intentionally racist, they can still be racist if there is unintentional, but yet present, codified and/or procedural discrimination and prejudicial action based on race. Bottom line.

---

"People" are just not buying?

You simply asserting a definition doesn't mean other people accept your definition any more than you accept theirs. People can disagree about definitions. While you say "Residual effects of an intentionally racist policy that is no longer existing is not systemic racism," others say that it doesn't even have to have an intentionally racist origin to be systemic racism.

For example, here is something about hockey from a Canadian website doesn't meet your definition at all:

"There is no explicit policy that excludes people of colour and Indigenous people from participating in organized hockey, yet there are few players of colour/Indigenous players. What is it that keeps organized hockey 'white'?

Playing hockey is expensive (fees and gear), time consuming for families, requires transportation and an accommodating work schedule, and in Alberta is conducted in English. While there is no 'intent' to exclude non-English speaking, lower-income, shift-working, single-parent families from playing organized hockey, the system is designed by and for middle-class, professional white families."

So, bottom line, claiming that "people aren't buying" a definition that differs from your own is not supported by evidence.

---

Could you give some examples of systems that do not result in disproportionality?

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sorry, DC Bear, but if you insist on defining systemic racism without there even needing to be racism, you are in your own little world and you'll only be having parallel discussions with others, because no rational person is gonna buy that.

---

Systemic racism can remain even after the racism that created it is gone.
Significant race-based disadvantages can occur without any racist intent on the part of policy makers.

---

Your first point requires racism to have existed, so it belies your definition.

Unless there is codified or procedural discrimination and prejudicial action based on race, any disparate outcome between races due to a policy is not "race-based", but rather "race-correlative". Correlation is not causation.

---

It doesn't "belie my definition," there are three ways systemic racism can be manifested, two of which I discuss here. One is through residual effects of intentional racist policies and one is through accidental effects of policies that were not intentionally racist. (The third, quite obviously, is the effects of current intentionally racist policies).

Call it "race-correlative" if you like, there is little practical difference.

---

Residual effects of an intentionally racist policy that is no longer existing is not systemic racism, but rather the effects of systemic racism that no longer exists. This is another one of your absurd assertions that no one is buying.

Being "race-correlative" means all the difference in the world - if race isn't the cause, but rather the correlation, then there are other variables that explain the disparate outcome, not race. Therefore, calling it systemic racism would be a misnomer, and a highly dubious characterization. Again, something people are just not buying.

Yes, even if policies were not intentionally racist, they can still be racist if there is unintentional, but yet present, codified and/or procedural discrimination and prejudicial action based on race. Bottom line.

---

"People" are just not buying?

You simply asserting a definition doesn't mean other people accept your definition any more than you accept theirs. People can disagree about definitions. While you say "Residual effects of an intentionally racist policy that is no longer existing is not systemic racism," others say that it doesn't even have to have an intentionally racist origin to be systemic racism.

For example, here is something about hockey from a Canadian website doesn't meet your definition at all:

"There is no explicit policy that excludes people of colour and Indigenous people from participating in organized hockey, yet there are few players of colour/Indigenous players. What is it that keeps organized hockey 'white'?

Playing hockey is expensive (fees and gear), time consuming for families, requires transportation and an accommodating work schedule, and in Alberta is conducted in English. While there is no 'intent' to exclude non-English speaking, lower-income, shift-working, single-parent families from playing organized hockey, the system is designed by and for middle-class, professional white families."

So, bottom line, claiming that "people aren't buying" a definition that differs from your own is not supported by evidence.

---

Could you give some examples of systems that do not result in disproportionality?

---

I suspect that, unless you are imposing quotas on what you measure, you are going to find some level of disproportionality.

There was once a saying: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It may still be apropriate.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sorry, DC Bear, but if you insist on defining systemic racism without there even needing to be racism, you are in your own little world and you'll only be having parallel discussions with others, because no rational person is gonna buy that.

---

Systemic racism can remain even after the racism that created it is gone.
Significant race-based disadvantages can occur without any racist intent on the part of policy makers.

---

Your first point requires racism to have existed, so it belies your definition.

Unless there is codified or procedural discrimination and prejudicial action based on race, any disparate outcome between races due to a policy is not "race-based", but rather "race-correlative". Correlation is not causation.

---

It doesn't "belie my definition," there are three ways systemic racism can be manifested, two of which I discuss here. One is through residual effects of intentional racist policies and one is through accidental effects of policies that were not intentionally racist. (The third, quite obviously, is the effects of current intentionally racist policies).

Call it "race-correlative" if you like, there is little practical difference.

---

Residual effects of an intentionally racist policy that is no longer existing is not systemic racism, but rather the effects of systemic racism that no longer exists. This is another one of your absurd assertions that no one is buying.

Being "race-correlative" means all the difference in the world - if race isn't the cause, but rather the correlation, then there are other variables that explain the disparate outcome, not race. Therefore, calling it systemic racism would be a misnomer, and a highly dubious characterization. Again, something people are just not buying.

Yes, even if policies were not intentionally racist, they can still be racist if there is unintentional, but yet present, codified and/or procedural discrimination and prejudicial action based on race. Bottom line.

---

"People" are just not buying?

You simply asserting a definition doesn't mean other people accept your definition any more than you accept theirs. People can disagree about definitions. While you say "Residual effects of an intentionally racist policy that is no longer existing is not systemic racism," others say that it doesn't even have to have an intentionally racist origin to be systemic racism.

For example, here is something about hockey from a Canadian website doesn't meet your definition at all:

"There is no explicit policy that excludes people of colour and Indigenous people from participating in organized hockey, yet there are few players of colour/Indigenous players. What is it that keeps organized hockey 'white'?

Playing hockey is expensive (fees and gear), time consuming for families, requires transportation and an accommodating work schedule, and in Alberta is conducted in English. While there is no 'intent' to exclude non-English speaking, lower-income, shift-working, single-parent families from playing organized hockey, the system is designed by and for middle-class, professional white families."

So, bottom line, claiming that "people aren't buying" a definition that differs from your own is not supported by evidence.

---

Could you give some examples of systems that do not result in disproportionality?

---

I suspect that, unless you are imposing quotas on what you measure, you are going to find some level of disproportionality.

---

Should a system that displays it be changed?

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sorry, DC Bear, but if you insist on defining systemic racism without there even needing to be racism, you are in your own little world and you'll only be having parallel discussions with others, because no rational person is gonna buy that.

---

Systemic racism can remain even after the racism that created it is gone.
Significant race-based disadvantages can occur without any racist intent on the part of policy makers.

---

Your first point requires racism to have existed, so it belies your definition.

Unless there is codified or procedural discrimination and prejudicial action based on race, any disparate outcome between races due to a policy is not "race-based", but rather "race-correlative". Correlation is not causation.

---

It doesn't "belie my definition," there are three ways systemic racism can be manifested, two of which I discuss here. One is through residual effects of intentional racist policies and one is through accidental effects of policies that were not intentionally racist. (The third, quite obviously, is the effects of current intentionally racist policies).

Call it "race-correlative" if you like, there is little practical difference.

---

Residual effects of an intentionally racist policy that is no longer existing is not systemic racism, but rather the effects of systemic racism that no longer exists. This is another one of your absurd assertions that no one is buying.

Being "race-correlative" means all the difference in the world - if race isn't the cause, but rather the correlation, then there are other variables that explain the disparate outcome, not race. Therefore, calling it systemic racism would be a misnomer, and a highly dubious characterization. Again, something people are just not buying.

Yes, even if policies were not intentionally racist, they can still be racist if there is unintentional, but yet present, codified and/or procedural discrimination and prejudicial action based on race. Bottom line.

---

"People" are just not buying?

You simply asserting a definition doesn't mean other people accept your definition any more than you accept theirs. People can disagree about definitions. While you say "Residual effects of an intentionally racist policy that is no longer existing is not systemic racism," others say that it doesn't even have to have an intentionally racist origin to be systemic racism.

For example, here is something about hockey from a Canadian website doesn't meet your definition at all:

"There is no explicit policy that excludes people of colour and Indigenous people from participating in organized hockey, yet there are few players of colour/Indigenous players. What is it that keeps organized hockey 'white'?

Playing hockey is expensive (fees and gear), time consuming for families, requires transportation and an accommodating work schedule, and in Alberta is conducted in English. While there is no 'intent' to exclude non-English speaking, lower-income, shift-working, single-parent families from playing organized hockey, the system is designed by and for middle-class, professional white families."

So, bottom line, claiming that "people aren't buying" a definition that differs from your own is not supported by evidence.

---

Could you give some examples of systems that do not result in disproportionality?

---

I suspect that, unless you are imposing quotas on what you measure, you are going to find some level of disproportionality.

---

Should a system that displays it be changed?

---

Sometimes.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sorry, DC Bear, but if you insist on defining systemic racism without there even needing to be racism, you are in your own little world and you'll only be having parallel discussions with others, because no rational person is gonna buy that.

---

Systemic racism can remain even after the racism that created it is gone.
Significant race-based disadvantages can occur without any racist intent on the part of policy makers.

---

Your first point requires racism to have existed, so it belies your definition.

Unless there is codified or procedural discrimination and prejudicial action based on race, any disparate outcome between races due to a policy is not "race-based", but rather "race-correlative". Correlation is not causation.

---

It doesn't "belie my definition," there are three ways systemic racism can be manifested, two of which I discuss here. One is through residual effects of intentional racist policies and one is through accidental effects of policies that were not intentionally racist. (The third, quite obviously, is the effects of current intentionally racist policies).

Call it "race-correlative" if you like, there is little practical difference.

---

Residual effects of an intentionally racist policy that is no longer existing is not systemic racism, but rather the effects of systemic racism that no longer exists. This is another one of your absurd assertions that no one is buying.

Being "race-correlative" means all the difference in the world - if race isn't the cause, but rather the correlation, then there are other variables that explain the disparate outcome, not race. Therefore, calling it systemic racism would be a misnomer, and a highly dubious characterization. Again, something people are just not buying.

Yes, even if policies were not intentionally racist, they can still be racist if there is unintentional, but yet present, codified and/or procedural discrimination and prejudicial action based on race. Bottom line.

---

"People" are just not buying?

You simply asserting a definition doesn't mean other people accept your definition any more than you accept theirs. People can disagree about definitions. While you say "Residual effects of an intentionally racist policy that is no longer existing is not systemic racism," others say that it doesn't even have to have an intentionally racist origin to be systemic racism.

For example, here is something about hockey from a Canadian website doesn't meet your definition at all:

"There is no explicit policy that excludes people of colour and Indigenous people from participating in organized hockey, yet there are few players of colour/Indigenous players. What is it that keeps organized hockey 'white'?

Playing hockey is expensive (fees and gear), time consuming for families, requires transportation and an accommodating work schedule, and in Alberta is conducted in English. While there is no 'intent' to exclude non-English speaking, lower-income, shift-working, single-parent families from playing organized hockey, the system is designed by and for middle-class, professional white families."

So, bottom line, claiming that "people aren't buying" a definition that differs from your own is not supported by evidence.

---

Could you give some examples of systems that do not result in disproportionality?

---

I suspect that, unless you are imposing quotas on what you measure, you are going to find some level of disproportionality.

---

Should a system that displays it be changed?

---

Sometimes.

---

Agree.

You may have missed it but I would like to continue a portion of the discussion above.

How in your opinion could we remove Affirmative Action?

I was thinking of the social ramifications of attempting to do so and how it would affect the process.

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sorry, DC Bear, but if you insist on defining systemic racism without there even needing to be racism, you are in your own little world and you'll only be having parallel discussions with others, because no rational person is gonna buy that.

---

Systemic racism can remain even after the racism that created it is gone.
Significant race-based disadvantages can occur without any racist intent on the part of policy makers.

---

Your first point requires racism to have existed, so it belies your definition.

Unless there is codified or procedural discrimination and prejudicial action based on race, any disparate outcome between races due to a policy is not "race-based", but rather "race-correlative". Correlation is not causation.

---

It doesn't "belie my definition," there are three ways systemic racism can be manifested, two of which I discuss here. One is through residual effects of intentional racist policies and one is through accidental effects of policies that were not intentionally racist. (The third, quite obviously, is the effects of current intentionally racist policies).

Call it "race-correlative" if you like, there is little practical difference.

---

Residual effects of an intentionally racist policy that is no longer existing is not systemic racism, but rather the effects of systemic racism that no longer exists. This is another one of your absurd assertions that no one is buying.

Being "race-correlative" means all the difference in the world - if race isn't the cause, but rather the correlation, then there are other variables that explain the disparate outcome, not race. Therefore, calling it systemic racism would be a misnomer, and a highly dubious characterization. Again, something people are just not buying.

Yes, even if policies were not intentionally racist, they can still be racist if there is unintentional, but yet present, codified and/or procedural discrimination and prejudicial action based on race. Bottom line.

---

"People" are just not buying?

You simply asserting a definition doesn't mean other people accept your definition any more than you accept theirs. People can disagree about definitions. While you say "Residual effects of an intentionally racist policy that is no longer existing is not systemic racism," others say that it doesn't even have to have an intentionally racist origin to be systemic racism.

For example, here is something about hockey from a Canadian website doesn't meet your definition at all:

"There is no explicit policy that excludes people of colour and Indigenous people from participating in organized hockey, yet there are few players of colour/Indigenous players. What is it that keeps organized hockey 'white'?

Playing hockey is expensive (fees and gear), time consuming for families, requires transportation and an accommodating work schedule, and in Alberta is conducted in English. While there is no 'intent' to exclude non-English speaking, lower-income, shift-working, single-parent families from playing organized hockey, the system is designed by and for middle-class, professional white families."

So, bottom line, claiming that "people aren't buying" a definition that differs from your own is not supported by evidence.

---

Could you give some examples of systems that do not result in disproportionality?

---

I suspect that, unless you are imposing quotas on what you measure, you are going to find some level of disproportionality.

---

Should a system that displays it be changed?

---

Sometimes.

---

Agree.

You may have missed it but I would like to continue a portion of the discussion above.

How in your opinion could we remove Affirmative Action?

I was thinking of the social ramifications of attempting to do so and how it would affect the process.

---

Some things could be taken off the books by court decisions. For example, giving preference based on race to college admissions has been limited somewhat by court decisions already. Colleges should not have a different set of standards based on race. If one believes that diversity is a useful trait for a student body, and I believe it is, you can take care of it without making admission decisions based on skin color. Things like race-based contracts and the like should run afoul Constitutional principles as well.

Longer term, you need to foster conditions where affirmative action is not seen as needed.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sorry, DC Bear, but if you insist on defining systemic racism without there even needing to be racism, you are in your own little world and you'll only be having parallel discussions with others, because no rational person is gonna buy that.

---

Systemic racism can remain even after the racism that created it is gone.
Significant race-based disadvantages can occur without any racist intent on the part of policy makers.

---

Your first point requires racism to have existed, so it belies your definition.

Unless there is codified or procedural discrimination and prejudicial action based on race, any disparate outcome between races due to a policy is not "race-based", but rather "race-correlative". Correlation is not causation.

---

It doesn't "belie my definition," there are three ways systemic racism can be manifested, two of which I discuss here. One is through residual effects of intentional racist policies and one is through accidental effects of policies that were not intentionally racist. (The third, quite obviously, is the effects of current intentionally racist policies).

Call it "race-correlative" if you like, there is little practical difference.

---

Residual effects of an intentionally racist policy that is no longer existing is not systemic racism, but rather the effects of systemic racism that no longer exists. This is another one of your absurd assertions that no one is buying.

Being "race-correlative" means all the difference in the world - if race isn't the cause, but rather the correlation, then there are other variables that explain the disparate outcome, not race. Therefore, calling it systemic racism would be a misnomer, and a highly dubious characterization. Again, something people are just not buying.

Yes, even if policies were not intentionally racist, they can still be racist if there is unintentional, but yet present, codified and/or procedural discrimination and prejudicial action based on race. Bottom line.

---

"People" are just not buying?

You simply asserting a definition doesn't mean other people accept your definition any more than you accept theirs. People can disagree about definitions. While you say "Residual effects of an intentionally racist policy that is no longer existing is not systemic racism," others say that it doesn't even have to have an intentionally racist origin to be systemic racism.

For example, here is something about hockey from a Canadian website doesn't meet your definition at all:

"There is no explicit policy that excludes people of colour and Indigenous people from participating in organized hockey, yet there are few players of colour/Indigenous players. What is it that keeps organized hockey 'white'?

Playing hockey is expensive (fees and gear), time consuming for families, requires transportation and an accommodating work schedule, and in Alberta is conducted in English. While there is no 'intent' to exclude non-English speaking, lower-income, shift-working, single-parent families from playing organized hockey, the system is designed by and for middle-class, professional white families."

So, bottom line, claiming that "people aren't buying" a definition that differs from your own is not supported by evidence.

---

Could you give some examples of systems that do not result in disproportionality?

---

I suspect that, unless you are imposing quotas on what you measure, you are going to find some level of disproportionality.

---

Should a system that displays it be changed?

---

Sometimes.

---

Agree.

You may have missed it but I would like to continue a portion of the discussion above.

How in your opinion could we remove Affirmative Action?

I was thinking of the social ramifications of attempting to do so and how it would affect the process.

---

Some things could be taken off the books by court decisions. For example, giving preference based on race to college admissions has been limited somewhat by court decisions already. Colleges should not have a different set of standards based on race. If one believes that diversity is a useful trait for a student body, and I believe it is, you can take care of it without making admission decisions based on skin color. Things like race-based contracts and the like should run afoul Constitutional principles as well.

Longer term, you need to foster conditions where affirmative action is not seen as needed.

---

Top 10% of HS graduates gain admission to any state university in which they are residents.

riflebear said:

---

---

Relevance?

D. C. Bear said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Relevance?

---

The New York Times claimed George W. said he was not voting for Trump. George W. came out and said that the claim was absolutely not true. So in your world, it is okay for mainstream news media outlets to lie and make up stuff? Hope this helps you understand the relevance a little better.

I am not real sure what has happened to you. I used to consider you one of the most objective posters on these boards but somehow you have fallen Far Left off of the train tracks.

riflebear said:

---

---

Wish he'd sue NYT but he'd never

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sorry, DC Bear, but if you insist on defining systemic racism without there even needing to be racism, you are in your own little world and you'll only be having parallel discussions with others, because no rational person is gonna buy that.

---

Systemic racism can remain even after the racism that created it is gone.
Significant race-based disadvantages can occur without any racist intent on the part of policy makers.

---

Your first point requires racism to have existed, so it belies your definition.

Unless there is codified or procedural discrimination and prejudicial action based on race, any disparate outcome between races due to a policy is not "race-based", but rather "race-correlative". Correlation is not causation.

---

It doesn't "belie my definition," there are three ways systemic racism can be manifested, two of which I discuss here. One is through residual effects of intentional racist policies and one is through accidental effects of policies that were not intentionally racist. (The third, quite obviously, is the effects of current intentionally racist policies).

Call it "race-correlative" if you like, there is little practical difference.

---

Residual effects of an intentionally racist policy that is no longer existing is not systemic racism, but rather the effects of systemic racism that no longer exists. This is another one of your absurd assertions that no one is buying.

Being "race-correlative" means all the difference in the world - if race isn't the cause, but rather the correlation, then there are other variables that explain the disparate outcome, not race. Therefore, calling it systemic racism would be a misnomer, and a highly dubious characterization. Again, something people are just not buying.

Yes, even if policies were not intentionally racist, they can still be racist if there is unintentional, but yet present, codified and/or procedural discrimination and prejudicial action based on race. Bottom line.

---

"People" are just not buying?

You simply asserting a definition doesn't mean other people accept your definition any more than you accept theirs. People can disagree about definitions. While you say "Residual effects of an intentionally racist policy that is no longer existing is not systemic racism," others say that it doesn't even have to have an intentionally racist origin to be systemic racism.

For example, here is something about hockey from a Canadian website doesn't meet your definition at all:

"There is no explicit policy that excludes people of colour and Indigenous people from participating in organized hockey, yet there are few players of colour/Indigenous players. What is it that keeps organized hockey 'white'?

Playing hockey is expensive (fees and gear), time consuming for families, requires transportation and an accommodating work schedule, and in Alberta is conducted in English. While there is no 'intent' to exclude non-English speaking, lower-income, shift-working, single-parent families from playing organized hockey, the system is designed by and for middle-class, professional white families."

So, bottom line, claiming that "people aren't buying" a definition that differs from your own is not supported by evidence.

---

Could you give some examples of systems that do not result in disproportionality?

---

I suspect that, unless you are imposing quotas on what you measure, you are going to find some level of disproportionality.

---

Should a system that displays it be changed?

---

Sometimes.

---

Agree.

You may have missed it but I would like to continue a portion of the discussion above.

How in your opinion could we remove Affirmative Action?

I was thinking of the social ramifications of attempting to do so and how it would affect the process.

---

Some things could be taken off the books by court decisions. For example, giving preference based on race to college admissions has been limited somewhat by court decisions already. Colleges should not have a different set of standards based on race. If one believes that diversity is a useful trait for a student body, and I believe it is, you can take care of it without making admission decisions based on skin color. Things like race-based contracts and the like should run afoul Constitutional principles as well.

Longer term, you need to foster conditions where affirmative action is not seen as needed.

---

Should perception (seen as needed) matter over what is fair? A argument could be made that society has made "progress" when it attempts to move toward the later (in terms of addressing systemic racism) regardless of how a percentage of the population sees it.

You mentioned longer term. Do you think it will happen in "our lifetime" ie. next 20+ years?

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Relevance?

---

The New York Times claimed George W. said he was not voting for Trump. George W. came out and said that the claim was absolutely not true. So in your world, it is okay for mainstream news media outlets to lie and make up stuff? Hope this helps you understand the relevance a little better.

I am not real sure what has happened to you. I used to consider you one of the most objective posters on these boards but somehow you have fallen Far Left off of the train tracks.

---

No, it just doesn't seem related to this thread. Seems like it would deserve its own.

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sorry, DC Bear, but if you insist on defining systemic racism without there even needing to be racism, you are in your own little world and you'll only be having parallel discussions with others, because no rational person is gonna buy that.

---

Systemic racism can remain even after the racism that created it is gone.
Significant race-based disadvantages can occur without any racist intent on the part of policy makers.

---

Your first point requires racism to have existed, so it belies your definition.

Unless there is codified or procedural discrimination and prejudicial action based on race, any disparate outcome between races due to a policy is not "race-based", but rather "race-correlative". Correlation is not causation.

---

It doesn't "belie my definition," there are three ways systemic racism can be manifested, two of which I discuss here. One is through residual effects of intentional racist policies and one is through accidental effects of policies that were not intentionally racist. (The third, quite obviously, is the effects of current intentionally racist policies).

Call it "race-correlative" if you like, there is little practical difference.

---

Residual effects of an intentionally racist policy that is no longer existing is not systemic racism, but rather the effects of systemic racism that no longer exists. This is another one of your absurd assertions that no one is buying.

Being "race-correlative" means all the difference in the world - if race isn't the cause, but rather the correlation, then there are other variables that explain the disparate outcome, not race. Therefore, calling it systemic racism would be a misnomer, and a highly dubious characterization. Again, something people are just not buying.

Yes, even if policies were not intentionally racist, they can still be racist if there is unintentional, but yet present, codified and/or procedural discrimination and prejudicial action based on race. Bottom line.

---

"People" are just not buying?

You simply asserting a definition doesn't mean other people accept your definition any more than you accept theirs. People can disagree about definitions. While you say "Residual effects of an intentionally racist policy that is no longer existing is not systemic racism," others say that it doesn't even have to have an intentionally racist origin to be systemic racism.

For example, here is something about hockey from a Canadian website doesn't meet your definition at all:

"There is no explicit policy that excludes people of colour and Indigenous people from participating in organized hockey, yet there are few players of colour/Indigenous players. What is it that keeps organized hockey 'white'?

Playing hockey is expensive (fees and gear), time consuming for families, requires transportation and an accommodating work schedule, and in Alberta is conducted in English. While there is no 'intent' to exclude non-English speaking, lower-income, shift-working, single-parent families from playing organized hockey, the system is designed by and for middle-class, professional white families."

So, bottom line, claiming that "people aren't buying" a definition that differs from your own is not supported by evidence.

---

Could you give some examples of systems that do not result in disproportionality?

---

I suspect that, unless you are imposing quotas on what you measure, you are going to find some level of disproportionality.

---

Should a system that displays it be changed?

---

Sometimes.

---

Agree.

You may have missed it but I would like to continue a portion of the discussion above.

How in your opinion could we remove Affirmative Action?

I was thinking of the social ramifications of attempting to do so and how it would affect the process.

---

Some things could be taken off the books by court decisions. For example, giving preference based on race to college admissions has been limited somewhat by court decisions already. Colleges should not have a different set of standards based on race. If one believes that diversity is a useful trait for a student body, and I believe it is, you can take care of it without making admission decisions based on skin color. Things like race-based contracts and the like should run afoul Constitutional principles as well.

Longer term, you need to foster conditions where affirmative action is not seen as needed.

---

Should perception (seen as needed) matter over what is fair? A argument could be made that society has made "progress" when it attempts to move toward the later (in terms of addressing systemic racism) regardless of how a percentage of the population sees it.

You mentioned longer term. Do you think it will happen in "our lifetime" ie. next 20+ years?

---

Should perception matter for what? In a sense, perception matters. It influences how people think about society and policies they might tend to support or oppose. In another, more objective sense, perception doesn't matter when it comes to determining what is actually going on. People, black, white and otherwise, have a lot of perceptions that aren't particularly accurate when it comes to issues of race in our society.

I have no idea if it will ever happen.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sorry, DC Bear, but if you insist on defining systemic racism without there even needing to be racism, you are in your own little world and you'll only be having parallel discussions with others, because no rational person is gonna buy that.

---

Systemic racism can remain even after the racism that created it is gone.
Significant race-based disadvantages can occur without any racist intent on the part of policy makers.

---

Your first point requires racism to have existed, so it belies your definition.

Unless there is codified or procedural discrimination and prejudicial action based on race, any disparate outcome between races due to a policy is not "race-based", but rather "race-correlative". Correlation is not causation.

---

It doesn't "belie my definition," there are three ways systemic racism can be manifested, two of which I discuss here. One is through residual effects of intentional racist policies and one is through accidental effects of policies that were not intentionally racist. (The third, quite obviously, is the effects of current intentionally racist policies).

Call it "race-correlative" if you like, there is little practical difference.

---

Residual effects of an intentionally racist policy that is no longer existing is not systemic racism, but rather the effects of systemic racism that no longer exists. This is another one of your absurd assertions that no one is buying.

Being "race-correlative" means all the difference in the world - if race isn't the cause, but rather the correlation, then there are other variables that explain the disparate outcome, not race. Therefore, calling it systemic racism would be a misnomer, and a highly dubious characterization. Again, something people are just not buying.

Yes, even if policies were not intentionally racist, they can still be racist if there is unintentional, but yet present, codified and/or procedural discrimination and prejudicial action based on race. Bottom line.

---

"People" are just not buying?

You simply asserting a definition doesn't mean other people accept your definition any more than you accept theirs. People can disagree about definitions. While you say "Residual effects of an intentionally racist policy that is no longer existing is not systemic racism," others say that it doesn't even have to have an intentionally racist origin to be systemic racism.

For example, here is something about hockey from a Canadian website doesn't meet your definition at all:

"There is no explicit policy that excludes people of colour and Indigenous people from participating in organized hockey, yet there are few players of colour/Indigenous players. What is it that keeps organized hockey 'white'?

Playing hockey is expensive (fees and gear), time consuming for families, requires transportation and an accommodating work schedule, and in Alberta is conducted in English. While there is no 'intent' to exclude non-English speaking, lower-income, shift-working, single-parent families from playing organized hockey, the system is designed by and for middle-class, professional white families."

So, bottom line, claiming that "people aren't buying" a definition that differs from your own is not supported by evidence.

---

Could you give some examples of systems that do not result in disproportionality?

---

I suspect that, unless you are imposing quotas on what you measure, you are going to find some level of disproportionality.

---

Should a system that displays it be changed?

---

Sometimes.

---

Agree.

You may have missed it but I would like to continue a portion of the discussion above.

How in your opinion could we remove Affirmative Action?

I was thinking of the social ramifications of attempting to do so and how it would affect the process.

---

Some things could be taken off the books by court decisions. For example, giving preference based on race to college admissions has been limited somewhat by court decisions already. Colleges should not have a different set of standards based on race. If one believes that diversity is a useful trait for a student body, and I believe it is, you can take care of it without making admission decisions based on skin color. Things like race-based contracts and the like should run afoul Constitutional principles as well.

Longer term, you need to foster conditions where affirmative action is not seen as needed.

---

Should perception (seen as needed) matter over what is fair? A argument could be made that society has made "progress" when it attempts to move toward the later (in terms of addressing systemic racism) regardless of how a percentage of the population sees it.

You mentioned longer term. Do you think it will happen in "our lifetime" ie. next 20+ years?

---

Should perception matter for what? In a sense, perception matters. It influences how people think about society and policies they might tend to support or oppose. In another, more objective sense, perception doesn't matter when it comes to determining what is actually going on. People, black, white and otherwise, have a lot of perceptions that aren't particularly accurate when it comes to issues of race in our society.

I have no idea if it will ever happen.

---

Should perception matter in calling for solutions of systemic racism.

In your opinion do you think Affirmative Action (in you College Admission example) should remain in place or removed? Why/Why not?

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sorry, DC Bear, but if you insist on defining systemic racism without there even needing to be racism, you are in your own little world and you'll only be having parallel discussions with others, because no rational person is gonna buy that.

---

Systemic racism can remain even after the racism that created it is gone.
Significant race-based disadvantages can occur without any racist intent on the part of policy makers.

---

Your first point requires racism to have existed, so it belies your definition.

Unless there is codified or procedural discrimination and prejudicial action based on race, any disparate outcome between races due to a policy is not "race-based", but rather "race-correlative". Correlation is not causation.

---

It doesn't "belie my definition," there are three ways systemic racism can be manifested, two of which I discuss here. One is through residual effects of intentional racist policies and one is through accidental effects of policies that were not intentionally racist. (The third, quite obviously, is the effects of current intentionally racist policies).

Call it "race-correlative" if you like, there is little practical difference.

---

Residual effects of an intentionally racist policy that is no longer existing is not systemic racism, but rather the effects of systemic racism that no longer exists. This is another one of your absurd assertions that no one is buying.

Being "race-correlative" means all the difference in the world - if race isn't the cause, but rather the correlation, then there are other variables that explain the disparate outcome, not race. Therefore, calling it systemic racism would be a misnomer, and a highly dubious characterization. Again, something people are just not buying.

Yes, even if policies were not intentionally racist, they can still be racist if there is unintentional, but yet present, codified and/or procedural discrimination and prejudicial action based on race. Bottom line.

---

"People" are just not buying?

You simply asserting a definition doesn't mean other people accept your definition any more than you accept theirs. People can disagree about definitions. While you say "Residual effects of an intentionally racist policy that is no longer existing is not systemic racism," others say that it doesn't even have to have an intentionally racist origin to be systemic racism.

For example, here is something about hockey from a Canadian website doesn't meet your definition at all:

"There is no explicit policy that excludes people of colour and Indigenous people from participating in organized hockey, yet there are few players of colour/Indigenous players. What is it that keeps organized hockey 'white'?

Playing hockey is expensive (fees and gear), time consuming for families, requires transportation and an accommodating work schedule, and in Alberta is conducted in English. While there is no 'intent' to exclude non-English speaking, lower-income, shift-working, single-parent families from playing organized hockey, the system is designed by and for middle-class, professional white families."

So, bottom line, claiming that "people aren't buying" a definition that differs from your own is not supported by evidence.

---

Could you give some examples of systems that do not result in disproportionality?

---

I suspect that, unless you are imposing quotas on what you measure, you are going to find some level of disproportionality.

---

Should a system that displays it be changed?

---

Sometimes.

---

Agree.

You may have missed it but I would like to continue a portion of the discussion above.

How in your opinion could we remove Affirmative Action?

I was thinking of the social ramifications of attempting to do so and how it would affect the process.

---

Some things could be taken off the books by court decisions. For example, giving preference based on race to college admissions has been limited somewhat by court decisions already. Colleges should not have a different set of standards based on race. If one believes that diversity is a useful trait for a student body, and I believe it is, you can take care of it without making admission decisions based on skin color. Things like race-based contracts and the like should run afoul Constitutional principles as well.

Longer term, you need to foster conditions where affirmative action is not seen as needed.

---

Should perception (seen as needed) matter over what is fair? A argument could be made that society has made "progress" when it attempts to move toward the later (in terms of addressing systemic racism) regardless of how a percentage of the population sees it.

You mentioned longer term. Do you think it will happen in "our lifetime" ie. next 20+ years?

---

Should perception matter for what? In a sense, perception matters. It influences how people think about society and policies they might tend to support or oppose. In another, more objective sense, perception doesn't matter when it comes to determining what is actually going on. People, black, white and otherwise, have a lot of perceptions that aren't particularly accurate when it comes to issues of race in our society.

I have no idea if it will ever happen.

---

Should perception matter in calling for solutions of systemic racism.

In your opinion do you think Affirmative Action (in you College Admission example) should remain in place or removed? Why/Why not?

---

In some cases, perception is all there is to systemic racism, so I suppose perception would have to matter if you wanted to get rid of it.

I think race-based affirmative action in college admissions should be gone because, in no particular order, (1) As I am not a racist, I believe African Americans are quite capable of getting in to college without it. (2) Race-based admissions to college seem to be an affront to important Constitutional principles.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bruce Leroy said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sorry, DC Bear, but if you insist on defining systemic racism without there even needing to be racism, you are in your own little world and you'll only be having parallel discussions with others, because no rational person is gonna buy that.

---

Systemic racism can remain even after the racism that created it is gone.
Significant race-based disadvantages can occur without any racist intent on the part of policy makers.

---

Your first point requires racism to have existed, so it belies your definition.

Unless there is codified or procedural discrimination and prejudicial action based on race, any disparate outcome between races due to a policy is not "race-based", but rather "race-correlative". Correlation is not causation.

---

It doesn't "belie my definition," there are three ways systemic racism can be manifested, two of which I discuss here. One is through residual effects of intentional racist policies and one is through accidental effects of policies that were not intentionally racist. (The third, quite obviously, is the effects of current intentionally racist policies).

Call it "race-correlative" if you like, there is little practical difference.

---

Residual effects of an intentionally racist policy that is no longer existing is not systemic racism, but rather the effects of systemic racism that no longer exists. This is another one of your absurd assertions that no one is buying.

Being "race-correlative" means all the difference in the world - if race isn't the cause, but rather the correlation, then there are other variables that explain the disparate outcome, not race. Therefore, calling it systemic racism would be a misnomer, and a highly dubious characterization. Again, something people are just not buying.

Yes, even if policies were not intentionally racist, they can still be racist if there is unintentional, but yet present, codified and/or procedural discrimination and prejudicial action based on race. Bottom line.

---

"People" are just not buying?

You simply asserting a definition doesn't mean other people accept your definition any more than you accept theirs. People can disagree about definitions. While you say "Residual effects of an intentionally racist policy that is no longer existing is not systemic racism," others say that it doesn't even have to have an intentionally racist origin to be systemic racism.

For example, here is something about hockey from a Canadian website doesn't meet your definition at all:

"There is no explicit policy that excludes people of colour and Indigenous people from participating in organized hockey, yet there are few players of colour/Indigenous players. What is it that keeps organized hockey 'white'?

Playing hockey is expensive (fees and gear), time consuming for families, requires transportation and an accommodating work schedule, and in Alberta is conducted in English. While there is no 'intent' to exclude non-English speaking, lower-income, shift-working, single-parent families from playing organized hockey, the system is designed by and for middle-class, professional white families."

So, bottom line, claiming that "people aren't buying" a definition that differs from your own is not supported by evidence.

---

Could you give some examples of systems that do not result in disproportionality?

---

I suspect that, unless you are imposing quotas on what you measure, you are going to find some level of disproportionality.

---

Should a system that displays it be changed?

---

Sometimes.

---

Agree.

You may have missed it but I would like to continue a portion of the discussion above.

How in your opinion could we remove Affirmative Action?

I was thinking of the social ramifications of attempting to do so and how it would affect the process.

---

Some things could be taken off the books by court decisions. For example, giving preference based on race to college admissions has been limited somewhat by court decisions already. Colleges should not have a different set of standards based on race. If one believes that diversity is a useful trait for a student body, and I believe it is, you can take care of it without making admission decisions based on skin color. Things like race-based contracts and the like should run afoul Constitutional principles as well.

Longer term, you need to foster conditions where affirmative action is not seen as needed.

---

Should perception (seen as needed) matter over what is fair? A argument could be made that society has made "progress" when it attempts to move toward the later (in terms of addressing systemic racism) regardless of how a percentage of the population sees it.

You mentioned longer term. Do you think it will happen in "our lifetime" ie. next 20+ years?

---

Should perception matter for what? In a sense, perception matters. It influences how people think about society and policies they might tend to support or oppose. In another, more objective sense, perception doesn't matter when it comes to determining what is actually going on. People, black, white and otherwise, have a lot of perceptions that aren't particularly accurate when it comes to issues of race in our society.

I have no idea if it will ever happen.

---

Should perception matter in calling for solutions of systemic racism.

In your opinion do you think Affirmative Action (in you College Admission example) should remain in place or removed? Why/Why not?

---

In some cases, perception is all there is to systemic racism, so I suppose perception would have to matter if you wanted to get rid of it.

I think race-based affirmative action in college admissions should be gone because, in no particular order, (1) As I am not a racist, I believe African Americans are quite capable of getting in to college without it. (2) Race-based admissions to college seem to be an affront to important Constitutional principles.

---

What is your opinion about race based affirmative action as it relates to job hiring and promotions ?