• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.
  7. There has been an addition to the announcement regarding unacceptable nick names. The phrase "Let's go Brandon" actually stands for a profanity and will be seen as a violation of the profanity rule in the future.

Modern day systemic racism, does it exist?

Discussion in 'American Politics' started by IWalkAlone, Nov 25, 2021.

  1. IWalkAlone

    IWalkAlone Well-Known Member

    +299
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Yes subprime loans created the bubble.
     
  2. rturner76

    rturner76 Domine non-sum dignus Supporter

    +2,432
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    US-Green
    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."
     
  3. rturner76

    rturner76 Domine non-sum dignus Supporter

    +2,432
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    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
     
  4. rjs330

    rjs330 Well-Known Member

    +3,557
    Pentecostal
    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.
     
  5. RDKirk

    RDKirk Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner Supporter

    +16,065
    Christian
    Married
    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.
     
  6. Estrid

    Estrid Well-Known Member

    +1,372
    Hong Kong
    Skeptic
    In Relationship
    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.
     
  7. rturner76

    rturner76 Domine non-sum dignus Supporter

    +2,432
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    US-Green
    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?
     
  8. rturner76

    rturner76 Domine non-sum dignus Supporter

    +2,432
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    US-Green
    :clap: Bye bye!
     
  9. rturner76

    rturner76 Domine non-sum dignus Supporter

    +2,432
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    US-Green
    You can say all of that and people will still say "nuh-uh" we have a civil rights law, it can't happen anymore.
     
  10. RDKirk

    RDKirk Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner Supporter

    +16,065
    Christian
    Married
    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.
     
  11. Strathos

    Strathos No one important

    +6,390
    Christian
    Single
    US-Democrat
    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.
     
  12. rturner76

    rturner76 Domine non-sum dignus Supporter

    +2,432
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    US-Green
    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..
     
  13. IWalkAlone

    IWalkAlone Well-Known Member

    +299
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Its the definition I'm using. Its the dictionary definition unless I'm mistaken.
     
  14. SilverBear

    SilverBear Well-Known Member

    +2,238
    Non-Denom
    Widowed
    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.
     
  15. IWalkAlone

    IWalkAlone Well-Known Member

    +299
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    And why call it racism? Some Asians make more money and do less time in prison than whites. Is that racism against whites? If its racist its against blacks and whites.
     
  16. RDKirk

    RDKirk Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner Supporter

    +16,065
    Christian
    Married
    It will get much better when we Boomers are dead, and that's what it's going to take.
     
  17. SilverBear

    SilverBear Well-Known Member

    +2,238
    Non-Denom
    Widowed
    but not all the people all the time and from all possibilities of discrimination
     
  18. IWalkAlone

    IWalkAlone Well-Known Member

    +299
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    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..
     
  19. SilverBear

    SilverBear Well-Known Member

    +2,238
    Non-Denom
    Widowed
    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?
     
  20. IWalkAlone

    IWalkAlone Well-Known Member

    +299
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    I know. Asians make more money that whites and they do less time in jail. Race card please.
     
Loading...