Modern day systemic racism, does it exist?

MrMoe said:

You seem to struggle with challenging your preconceptions.

Click to expand...

We have outcomes that are worse for those who are BIPOC.
Arguing that that is because of anything but racism, misses the point whilst proving it at the same time.

Congratulations, it’s rare to see such unintentional honesty!

Pommer said:

We have outcomes that are worse for those who are BIPOC.

Click to expand...

That isn't in dispute. Why outcomes are worse for those who are BIPOC is what's in dispute.

Pommer said:

Arguing that that is because of anything but racism,

Click to expand...

That wasn't my argument. My argument is it could be racism, but it could be other reasons.

Your argument seems to be it can't be anything but racism.

Pommer said:

misses the point whilst proving it at the same time.

Click to expand...

What was the point? I though it was that BIPOC have worse outcomes because of systemic racism. A claim that you has yet to proven.

Pommer said:

Congratulations, it’s rare to see such unintentional honesty!

Click to expand...

"it’s rare to see such unintentional honesty!" Implying that I'm being dishonest most of the time. Do you have anything else to add to the debate beside an ad hominem?

Russell Vought steers the Trumpified CFPB in a regressive direction​

[During Trump 1.0,] the Republican president appointed Kathleen Kraninger to run the consumer bureau, and she brought a case against a Chicago-based lender that was accused of racially discriminatory practices. The effort succeeded, and the lender ultimately agreed to a settlement after losing a court fight.

[During Trump 2.0, the CFPB] is seeking to give back $105,000 that a mortgage lender paid to settle racial discrimination claims last fall.

Christine Chen Zinner, a senior lawyer at Americans for Financial Reform, a progressive advocacy group, told the Times that the consumer bureau’s attempt to overturn the settlement is “bananacakes.”

It’s painful to see this thread still going after nearly four years, but with the broadened perspective that time has given us, I have more to say on this topic.

The term “systemic racism” entered the common lexicon in the early 2020’s as the BLM movement gained traction under a unique period of social unrest due both to Covid lockdowns and highly publicized cases of police brutality. Originally a term meant to describe nominally race-blind systems that consistently put minority races at a disadvantage, the term quickly became muddled as it was wielded by both sides of the political aisle as an example of how crazy the opposing sect sounded. On the Left it was a sign that our systems needed a full overhaul to protect racial equality (if only they could muscle past the racists protecting those systems), and on the Right it was a bunch of crazy leftists tilting at their latest boogeyman when clearly racism had been defeated decades prior.

As with most hot-button issues, the Left refused to eschew academic language for something more accessible while the Right oversimplified and spun it in their favor. The course of this thread since 2021 shows how even now we remain divided along party lines. The course of the political climate since then shows who was more effective.

Of course systemic racism exists. That’s like asking if evolution is true, if climate change is happening, or if the Earth is roughly spherical. The question is what’s to be done about it? How do we go about righting racial inequities that are baked into our society without doing similar injustice to another undeserving party?

Alright, that’s enough pretentious formality for one day.

gaara4158 said:

It’s painful to see this thread still going after nearly four years, but with the broadened perspective that time has given us, I have more to say on this topic.

The term “systemic racism” entered the common lexicon in the early 2020’s as the BLM movement gained traction under a unique period of social unrest due both to Covid lockdowns and highly publicized cases of police brutality. Originally a term meant to describe nominally race-blind systems that consistently put minority races at a disadvantage, the term quickly became muddled as it was wielded by both sides of the political aisle as an example of how crazy the opposing sect sounded. On the Left it was a sign that our systems needed a full overhaul to protect racial equality (if only they could muscle past the racists protecting those systems), and on the Right it was a bunch of crazy leftists tilting at their latest boogeyman when clearly racism had been defeated decades prior.

Click to expand...

Yes, the fight about the fight was as far as we ever got.

gaara4158 said:

As with most hot-button issues, the Left refused to eschew academic language for something more accessible while the Right oversimplified and spun it in their favor. The course of this thread since 2021 shows how even now we remain divided along party lines. The course of the political climate since then shows who was more effective.

Click to expand...

The Right doesn’t want to have these conversations, (and we (again) fight about the fight).

gaara4158 said:

Of course systemic racism exists. That’s like asking if evolution is true, if climate change is happening, or if the Earth is roughly spherical. The question is what’s to be done about it? How do we go about righting racial inequities that are baked into our society without doing similar injustice to another undeserving party?

Click to expand...

Many still ascribe to the it’s anything but racism…(oh, let us just call it) “philosophy”.
We are not a cereal nation.

gaara4158 said:

Alright, that’s enough pretentious formality for one day.

Click to expand...

Speak for thyself, sir!
Good day!

essentialsaltes said:

Secret recordings reveal LAPD cops spewing racist, sexist and homophobic comments, complaint alleges​

Click to expand...

LAPD officer who recorded colleagues’ racist, homophobic comments may face criminal case​

• California law prohibits recording conversations without the consent of those involved.
• Flores has filed a lawsuit against the city, arguing that he had the authority as a police officer to make the recordings as part of an investigation.

[His attorney] Smith said Flores recently received notification that his internal affairs case had been turned over to the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office for possible charges.

A separate administrative investigation of Flores by the LAPD found him guilty of policy violations and recommended a 20-day suspension without pay, his attorney said. The discipline has not yet been finalized by the LAPD chief, Smith said.

Smith said it wasn’t clear whether any of the accused officers have been punished, but it seemed that the department was going after his client for reporting wrongdoing. LAPD policy forbids officers from retaliating against colleagues who report misconduct. California law requires most police personnel investigations to be kept confidential.

essentialsaltes said:

• California law prohibits recording conversations without the consent of those involved.

Click to expand...

"Yes Mr. Shapiro, we want to wiretap your client discussing the murders, drug sales, human trafficking, prostitution, gun smuggling, and racketeering in the waterfront warehouse on Tuesday the 23rd, say around 5pm. Would that be okay?"

Aryeh Jay said:

"Yes Mr. Shapiro, we want to wiretap your client discussing the murders, drug sales, human trafficking, prostitution, gun smuggling, and racketeering in the waterfront warehouse on Tuesday the 23rd, say around 5pm. Would that be okay?"

Click to expand...

According to a recent Supreme Court decision, if the police officers have reason to fear for Mr. Shapiro's safety (reason among themselves--they don't have to convince a judge), they do not have to seek a warrant for a wiretap (or any other violation of the 4th Amendment)

essentialsaltes said:

LAPD officer who recorded colleagues’ racist, homophobic comments may face criminal case​

• California law prohibits recording conversations without the consent of those involved.
• Flores has filed a lawsuit against the city, arguing that he had the authority as a police officer to make the recordings as part of an investigation.

Click to expand...

LAPD officer who recorded colleagues’ racist comments charged with felony eavesdropping​

• Prosecutors charge that LAPD officer Daniel Flores violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act, which prohibits recording others without their consent.
• Flores filed an internal affairs complaint against his LAPD colleagues after recording them making racist, homophobic and sexist comments.
• Flores’ lawyer said the case sends a message that “if you document bigotry inside the LAPD, you will be the one who ends up in a courtroom

In a statement announcing the charges, L.A. Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman said that while he found the recorded comments deplorable, Flores still violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act, which prohibits recording others without their consent.

[Flores' lawyer] Jackson said the officer will fight the charge and plead not guilty, and that the law only applies where the speakers have a reasonable expectation that what they say would not be overheard or recorded.

Jackson said the anticipated charge against Flores sends a message that “if you document bigotry inside the LAPD, you will be the one who ends up in a courtroom. It tells them the safe move is to hear slurs and say nothing.”

essentialsaltes said:

LAPD officer who recorded colleagues’ racist comments charged with felony eavesdropping​

• Prosecutors charge that LAPD officer Daniel Flores violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act, which prohibits recording others without their consent.
• Flores filed an internal affairs complaint against his LAPD colleagues after recording them making racist, homophobic and sexist comments.
• Flores’ lawyer said the case sends a message that “if you document bigotry inside the LAPD, you will be the one who ends up in a courtroom

In a statement announcing the charges, L.A. Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman said that while he found the recorded comments deplorable, Flores still violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act, which prohibits recording others without their consent.

[Flores' lawyer] Jackson said the officer will fight the charge and plead not guilty, and that the law only applies where the speakers have a reasonable expectation that what they say would not be overheard or recorded.

Jackson said the anticipated charge against Flores sends a message that “if you document bigotry inside the LAPD, you will be the one who ends up in a courtroom. It tells them the safe move is to hear slurs and say nothing.”

Click to expand...

That is a sticky situation.

I've been in the an extremely similar situation as the supervisors of the officers Flores recorded when I was in Illinois managing a call center. One of my subordinates was on the phone with one of our agents in California and turned to disparage the agent with a co-worker--thinking he'd put the phone on mute. The agent had recorded their conversation, then passed it to our company headquarters in California. It went up the chain to the regional president, then over to our corporate CEO, back down the chain to my director.

My director called me into her office and said, "I need you to hear something." Listening to the recording, I actually laid my forehead down on her desk.

Well, of course, immediate dismissal was called for. But I reminded my director that both California and Illinois had laws against one-sided recording. If we fired them for that cause, we would be liable to a lawsuit and maybe even criminal charges. Indeed, a couple of days later we got the advisement from the legal department to leave them alone. For the moment.

I had a very serious conversation with them, though, to let them know they were skating on the thinnest of ice and would be wise to start sending out resumes.