Modern day systemic racism, does it exist?

rturner76

Domine non-sum dignus
Supporter
May 10, 2011
10,484
3,582
Twin Cities
✟724,721.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
it might not hurt if you backed off from having to be
" right ".
Not liking a bad smell isnt racist. The landlord who
had to clean the oil off the walls after my friends'
year of the wok would be quite justified being leery of
renting to Chinese again.
Call it racist if you must but that dors not mean it
is or that you are right.
You know?
Think about it.
None of us ate through learning.
It's still racist according to the civil rights law of the United States. If you don't like Asians cooking in your property, too bad. They have the same right as anybody else to rent. Contact them about their rule violation after they violate your "no intrusive smells" rule. You can't just say "no Asians allowed."
 
Upvote 0

rturner76

Domine non-sum dignus
Supporter
May 10, 2011
10,484
3,582
Twin Cities
✟724,721.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Racist=
  1. prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
    "we are investigating complaints about racist abuse"
Value (in this context)

2 a person's principles or standards of behavior; one's judgment of what is important in life.
"they internalize their parents' rules and values"

There you go. We learn, we grow
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,261
5,981
64
✟333,216.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Thank you for your inout. I suggest you read about American history. Blacks in the south were most often slaves and the government provided them with the laws they needed to perpetuate the system for a few hundred years. Google has a ton of resources you can try.

Oh here we go. Just wondering when you are going to catch up on today. Cause today is what we are talking about. We all are very well aware of what went in back then. And we would ALL AGREE that it WAS systemic racism.

Can we all agree that was the case and move on?

We are talking about today and if there still IS systemic racism happening. The answer is, we don't believe there is. And the fact you had to bring up things that happened 60 years ago and longer shows that you don't really have any real systemic racism today.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,137
20,182
US
✟1,441,220.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So why don't you get it from a book or an academic journal? You don't seem to believe anything I say

A war story:

Back in the 1970s, the Navy's Signals Intelligence field began admitting large numbers of women because there was no practical reason why not. The Navy SIGINT field is utilized both in shore facilities and aboard combat ships. Through the next decade, the Navy prohibited women from serving on ships, including the women in the SIGINT field, although they served capably in the shore facilities.

But by the latter 1980s, as female SIGNINTers gained promotions, a problem became apparent. The Navy promotion boards were informally--but very definitely--using the Surface Warfare combat award as the basic discrimination factor for promotions to Chief Petty Officer (a major promotion increment). It was the first thing the promotion board looked for, and they automatically disqualified candidates without the SW badge. At first glance, that made sense because surface warfare is what the Navy is all about...the idea of a seaman in a leadership role who had never been to sea seemed ludicrous.

The problem was that at least six months of sea duty was required to gain the SW badge...and the Navy was prohibiting women from sea duty. There were always many more people qualified for promotion than there were available slots, and many more men who held SW badges than there were available slots. So by immediately eliminating people without SW badges...no woman stood a chance for promotion to CPO. And when the Navy actually looked at promotion folders, they found that many times in every other way, women candidates were superior to male candidates...except for that badge.

That is what was defined at the time as structural sexism. The Navy determined that for that particular career field, the SW badge didn't make for any better leader, so promotion boards were instructed to stop using lack of the SW badge as an automatic disqualification and to look at the entire promotion folder. If a woman's record showed that she'd done everything else possible to be promotable, she deserved the promotion more than a man who done little more than the six months at sea to get the SW badge.

But then, by the 90s, the Navy discovered another problem. Even though they had removed the structural barrier, woman promotions still lagged behind statistical predictions. That is what you call "systemic" discrimination. Something was happening in the system that had nothing to do with the written process.

Promotion boards were instructed to take another step. After selecting all the promotees for the cycle, they compared the proportion of women selectees against the statistical predictions. If their selection was below prediction, that served as a flag of possible sexist discrimination. Promotion boards were instructed to take a second look at the highest rated woman non-selectee and compare her record again with those who were selected. If in that second evaluation, the board could identify specific reasons for the difference, the tally would stand. But if indeed, that highest rated non-selectee did actually have a record comparable to the selectees, she would become a selectee. Then they would look again at the next highest rated non-selectee, and so on until they got down to one who was justifiably not selected.

Now, the point to all this was not to achieve "equity"--meaning promoting as many women as necessary to make the statistics look good. The point was to ensure a fair procedure...and then let those chips then fall where they may.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rjs330
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,543
3,179
39
Hong Kong
✟147,302.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
It's still racist according to the civil rights law of the United States. If you don't like Asians cooking in your property, too bad. They have the same right as anybody else to rent. Contact them about their rule violation after they violate your "no intrusive smells" rule. You can't just say "no Asians allowed."

Off to strawman city.

And that is all you got from my post.


Look, never mind. Why should I care.
You guys fight all you like over stupid trifles
like how dreadful it is to call a girl " she" instead
of they, burn down your cities for justice while
your feckless leaders...but I said never mind.
I am out, carry on as you will.

Soon enough you will find out what the reward is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rjs330
Upvote 0

rturner76

Domine non-sum dignus
Supporter
May 10, 2011
10,484
3,582
Twin Cities
✟724,721.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Oh here we go. Just wondering when you are going to catch up on today. Cause today is what we are talking about. We all are very well aware of what went in back then. And we would ALL AGREE that it WAS systemic racism.

Can we all agree that was the case and move on?

We are talking about today and if there still IS systemic racism happening. The answer is, we don't believe there is. And the fact you had to bring up things that happened 60 years ago and longer shows that you don't really have any real systemic racism today.
Perfect illustration of how you don't understand the term How can the past not inform the present? You think past events have absolutely nothing to do with today? What's the cut-off year 1975? When did people stop being racist? When the civil rights law was passed, do you believe that eliminated racism?
 
Upvote 0

rturner76

Domine non-sum dignus
Supporter
May 10, 2011
10,484
3,582
Twin Cities
✟724,721.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Strawman city.

Look, never mind. Why should I care.
You guys fight all you like over stupid trifles
like how dreadful it is to call a girl " she" instead
of they, burn down your cities for justice while
your feckless leaders...but I said never mind.
I am out, carry on as you will.

Soon enough you will find out what the reward is.
:clap: Bye bye!
 
Upvote 0

rturner76

Domine non-sum dignus
Supporter
May 10, 2011
10,484
3,582
Twin Cities
✟724,721.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
A war story:

Back in the 1970s, the Navy's Signals Intelligence field began admitting large numbers of women because there was no practical reason why not. The Navy SIGINT field is utilized both in shore facilities and aboard combat ships. Through the next decade, the Navy prohibited women from serving on ships, including the women in the SIGINT field, although they served capably in the shore facilities.

But by the latter 1980s, as female SIGNINTers gained promotions, a problem became apparent. The Navy promotion boards were informally--but very definitely--using the Surface Warfare combat award as the basic discrimination factor for promotions to Chief Petty Officer (a major promotion increment). It was the first thing the promotion board looked for, and they automatically disqualified candidates without the SW badge. At first glance, that made sense because surface warfare is what the Navy is all about...the idea of a seaman in a leadership role who had never been to sea seemed ludicrous.

The problem was that at least six months of sea duty was required to gain the SW badge...and the Navy was prohibiting women from sea duty. There were always many more people qualified for promotion than there were available slots, and many more men who held SW badges than there were available slots. So by immediately eliminating people without SW badges...no woman stood a chance for promotion to CPO. And when the Navy actually looked at promotion folders, they found that many times in every other way, women candidates were superior to male candidates...except for that badge.

That is what was defined at the time as structural sexism. The Navy determined that for that particular career field, the SW badge didn't make for any better leader, so promotion boards were instructed to stop using lack of the SW badge as an automatic disqualification and to look at the entire promotion folder. If a woman's record showed that she'd done everything else possible to be promotable, she deserved the promotion more than a man who done little more than the six months at sea to get the SW badge.

But then, by the 90s, the Navy discovered another problem. Even though they had removed the structural barrier, woman promotions still lagged behind statistical predictions. That is what you call "systemic" discrimination. Something was happening in the system that had nothing to do with the written process.

Promotion boards were instructed to take another step. After selecting all the promotees for the cycle, they compared the proportion of women selectees against the statistical predictions. If their selection was below prediction, that served as a flag of possible sexist discrimination. Promotion boards were instructed to take a second look at the highest rated woman non-selectee and compare her record again with those who were selected. If in that second evaluation, the board could identify specific reasons for the difference, the tally would stand. But if indeed, that highest rated non-selectee did actually have a record comparable to the selectees, she would become a selectee. Then they would look again at the next highest rated non-selectee, and so on until they got down to one who was justifiably not selected.

Now, the point to all this was not to achieve "equity"--meaning promoting as many women as necessary to make the statistics look good. The point was to ensure a fair procedure...and then let those chips then fall where they may.
You can say all of that and people will still say "nuh-uh" we have a civil rights law, it can't happen anymore.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,137
20,182
US
✟1,441,220.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Perfect illustration of how you don't understand the term How can the past not inform the present? You think past events have absolutely nothing to do with today? What's the cut-off year 1975? When did people stop being racist? When the civil rights law was passed, do you believe that eliminated racism?

It's disingenuous to pretend that racism in society is not decreasing. IOW, American society is less racist than it was 50 years ago, if for no other reason than that the War and Boomer Generations are dying off.

That's why it's ludicrous for an elementary school teacher to label fifth-grade white kids as "oppressors" in some misguided anti-racist training. Those kids are certainly not "oppressors" today, and as members of Generation A-prime, they won't be oppressors in the future.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Strathos

No one important
Dec 11, 2012
12,663
6,531
God's Earth
✟263,276.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Upvote 0

rturner76

Domine non-sum dignus
Supporter
May 10, 2011
10,484
3,582
Twin Cities
✟724,721.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
It's disingenuous to pretend that racism in society is not decreasing. IOW, American society is less racist than it was 50 years ago, if for no other reason than that the War and Boomer Generations are dying off.

That's why it's ludicrous for an elementary school teacher to label fifth-grade white kids as "oppressors" in some misguided anti-racist training. Those kids are certainly not "oppressors" today, and as members of Generation A-prime, they won't be oppressors in the future.
I don't think they call the children oppressors. THat's not nice. I wasn't trying to imply it's gotten worse but that the past has affected the present in hearts and minds..
 
Upvote 0

IWalkAlone

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2021
1,687
310
Ohio
✟11,916.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I'm not sure what exactly you're asking me here.



It's one definition. The problem is that there is no universally agreed-upon definition.
Its the definition I'm using. Its the dictionary definition unless I'm mistaken.
 
Upvote 0

SilverBear

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2016
7,359
3,297
57
Michigan
✟166,106.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Its not systemic racism within the government. Also Asians do better than whites. If whites and blacks are both discriminated against how is it racism?
But it is in the government.. As the article showed (again try reading things) banking and money lending institutions take advantage of loopholes in the law.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,137
20,182
US
✟1,441,220.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't think they call the children oppressors. THat's not nice. I wasn't trying to imply it's gotten worse but that the past has affected the present in hearts and minds..

It will get much better when we Boomers are dead, and that's what it's going to take.
 
Upvote 0

IWalkAlone

Well-Known Member
Oct 26, 2021
1,687
310
Ohio
✟11,916.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
But it is in the government.. As the article showed (again try reading things) banking and money lending institutions take advantage of loopholes in the law.
Why don't Pelosi and Biden fix it? No more discrimination.i don't know why we are complaining about it year after year after identifying the problem. i bet if they asked Trump to do something he would have..
 
Upvote 0

SilverBear

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2016
7,359
3,297
57
Michigan
✟166,106.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
I'm talking about the government. The government actually protects its citizens
so why did it take years of fighting in the courts before it was finally rules that employers cannot just fire LGBT individuasl just becasue they find out they are members of a minority?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums