Exh systmrcmmmj

 Liberal 2.0ers love meritocratic competition because it allows them to envision fighting racism as a moral competition

The term systemic bias is a better term for what is called systemic racism. Systematic sectarianism also is a better term for what is called systemic racism

People counter by saying that the ability to use the word ‘racism’ more broadly is actually the entire point.

I have issue though with the systemic part too. The only "place" I might imagine an ideology (racism, misandry, stoicism, methodism) being, besides in individuals who believe in it, is in codified documents with legal force, such as laws and regulations.

But my knowledge of the woke have made it crystal clear that this is not the thing they have in mind. Yet I can't figure out where, precisely, they believe that systemic ideas exist, then. Their vague hand waving pointing to "society" or "the system" doesn’t clear this up

I wonder if it would it make more sense to label it baked instead of systemic? Instead of "this system was designed to oppress group X", we have to see it this way: "the system’s design causes it's burdens to disproportionately fall onto group X regardless of the intention of its designers".

A fair example would be with impoverished people frequently being more audited on their taxes because the IRS thinks that they are less likely to bring in powerful lawyers for a costly and uncertain battle; the system wasn't designed to harm impoverished people, yet it does so nonetheless because of it's nature and function, along with the incentives of the people who operate it.

An IRS comparison actually makes sense to me. It exists in some concrete place -- in specific laws and regulations. And it has measurable negative consequences for a specific group. Though no one sets out to cause these harms.

The IRS is discriminatory -- they treat different groups differently. We are able to measure it and specify in exact terms how it operates.

However I don't think the IRS is 'classist' (the stand-in for racism here) since that requires intent. Prejudice needs intent. And this policy's effects are by accident (I'm under the assumption here of no bad faith actors).

Hurricane Katrina disproportionately affected African Americans, however no one calls Hurricane Katrina racist, since as a hurricane there is no way it could intend to harm them. Saying otherwise is as maximumly stupid as what these scapegoating pastors said about Hurricane Katrina

I think if those who talk about supposed "systemic racism" denounced instead "widespread patterns of discriminatory effects", it would make sense. Many such cases do indeed exist.

But they appear to feel some compulsion to go way further and demonize entire demographic groups by implying there's an evil cabal of whites who are purposely trying to crush African Americans at every turn and in every case that African Americans outcomes are worse than whites.

And come to think of it, this is very reminiscent of typical disproven anti-semitic tropes about Jews falsely running the world from the shadows.

Our society is systemically classist (good luck getting a good lawyer when you are poor) and thats how it hits African Americans so much. But keeping the working class down is absolutely enshrined in our laws.

Could people that are part of the system and then state “systemic racism is real” merely be fired for being racist?

When all of the people were doing the while “I am X, and I am a racist” woke absolution performances a few years back, all I was thinking was “in 3-5 years they are going to get fired for publicly stating that they were racist”

Systemic racial discrimination thankfully has been illegal in the US. for several decades now (I don’t think affirmative action is racial discrimination so I won’t count it as such)

If we want to define systemic racism as any discrepancies between "races" then that's misguided and unrealistic since discrepancies between "races" is not evidence of the "system" participating in discrimination by imposing or promoting these discrepancies.

We are getting to the point where I'm observing the racial activists being counter productive since promoting the rights of a group that is by law equal is giving off the appearance of effectively demanding favorable discriminatory policy and/or distracts from the more real issues of the country.

There’s a difference between the law and real rule of law. That’s why the federal law on racial rights were for all intents and purposes suspended during the Jim Crow era

Legalized “racism” was luckily essentially legislated into abolishment . It’s a great thing. But back in those days it was also understood that the majority of rights deemed necessary were provided already. It wasn’t until years later really that it was understood to be false.

Legislating something does not make something true nor does it mean it’s not hollow. What a courthouse or congress finds to be true does not necessarily mean anything actually.

We can’t only state something is illegal to say it is not existent. Furthermore, given how amorphous systemic racism is defined, it essentially permits a grey zone of morality where any person can see that it doesn’t exist

A lot of society does operate on procedure or written down texts.

It isn’t a stretch to say that the majority of medical studies are done on young white men. Something as routine as a pulse oxiometer reports results that are differently shown depending on the most minute of difference, showing falsely higher values if you have darker tone. 

This leads to the understanding that this only became mainstream knowledge among medical providers in later years, despite the device being in use for quite some time. Up until recently it's been causing blacks to receive worse care, by a margain.

It’s not hard to come to the conclusion that text books authored by whites who aren't thinking about if race may impact something carry on any racial ignorance put into them, and that then transfers into practice and situations until someone notices this and switches it up. It might be a lesser factor for why some minorities may have worse health outcomes than the group merely due to having less wealth generally, but it does have impact somewhere, right?.

The "system" part of the term in this case is the general inertia of the medical establishment and its compliance to older ideas, which in turn were typically created in a setting where there were active racial issues.

I am actually more curious why "systemic sexism" isn't a term. It applies as well as woke people say that systematic racism applies yet I don't see it being used at all.

Racial bias training consists of millions of little faulty procedures that inadequately represent what the racial bias training advocates state individually must be expunged

You can be as tolerant as you like but if you don't know that the pulse oxymeter is not as functional on one skin tone as on another skin tone, you're not likely to think about interpreting the numbers differently; most likely you'll basically think that the designers would have accounted for that or something.

The problem at hand with the term "systemic racism" in how it's being used is that there's little systemic about it. 

Used by 'anti-racists', it commonly only means the aggregate of individual racist frame of minds. So the fixes are also not systemic: Racial bias training, the privilege thing, more poc representation within the (unchanged) system. Similar to what Touré Reed points out, the idea is separated from the political economy.

But this article does the exact thing, which is somewhat only the neoliberal response to the problem. 

It rapidly dismisses the notion that "lousy, underfunded schools" have a connection with underperformance, yet the argumentation lacks rigor: 

Is the performance gap in 'normie' schools as huge as it is overall? What's different in attitude if we account for class? What sort of immigrant families are putting their children in top tier schools - is the economic status of the selected groups the same? 

This article doesn't state such things, and neither does it provide us sources. Rather it presents another individualistic solution: Don't focus our attention on bad schools, lack of resources or that parents have to work multiple jobs and didn't get a good education themselves, just change your attitude towards school! This is very similar to the drivel that has always been directed towards the poor. 

Though I think I may be overly dismissive. Yes, the author doesn't give us sources/stats which means we have to be skeptical about his argument overall - though it doesn't mean we can simply go on to say it's wrong at the same time. Yes, obviously we need to provide more resources to working class schools and wages must be higher which means people don't need to work multiple jobs. But that doesn't negate the view that there aren't other factors in play.

This author is looking at this from a bourgeois perspective (like he is saying “people should do better at school so they can go on to Yale, become doctors or lawyers and make lots of money) but the frankly anti-educational sentiment of sections of the working class has ramifications on the order of organization and class consciousness.

In the UK there was something on the order of a moral panic in recent times due to the fact that it turned out that poor white kids were doing worse (worse in attending higher education) than poor kids who were of other ethnicities. (link for London figures). 

Numerous explanations were put forth and some of it is in fact material differences but a portion of it (from experience) is the attitude to education. There's a strangely self-destructive hostility to education in some quarters which (if you believed in conspiracy theories) you could assume had been consciously crafted by the ruling class to stop people rising above their station.

Or it could be it’s merely the systematic underfunding of English regions that aren’t London / Greater London commuter belt area.

Some impoverished regions get under 90 percent of average funding from the national government per person, at the same time the most affluent areas (London) get 112 percent of said average.

So places more in need and with more poverty get much less money - not enough money in fact to run schools good.

Weirdly those are the regions where said educational issue is most prevalent. That’s been the case for aeons. And doesn’t include the full lack of infrastructure investment in any place outside of London.

Throwing money toward people who decide not to engage with school won't transform them into people who admire education. And if you ponder that there is no one who is resistant to learning, you don't know teens. Or even adults for that matter.

Funding is what matters. What happens from the schools with the money matters also, but way more importantly is what the students are doing. All the expensive software , hardware, and audio-visual tools and labs aren't worth a whole lot if the students aren’t using them effectively because "school is for swots".

You can't make students against their will be engaged. All that can be done is to try to move the cultural prejudice that is opposed to learning and education, yet that's a much more difficult aim than merely signing a contract to spend $X million dollars on software to "put the JOY in E-Learning!" Or "relevance", or "usability" or any other buzzword the used car merchants are using this month.

"Systemic racism" is only really neoliberal academia's diversion away from the class struggle. Black and Hispanic people are targeted by the system because they are generally poor, surplus laborers, exactly like a plurality of whites. There are real Nazis who are in law enforcement, however they are a minority that are shielded by institutional insulation.

Systemic racism has turned into a hard obstacle, poking its way into all nook and crannies of society. Systemic racism persists in showing up in the different intercourses of life, leaving in its trail a sticky mess that, if remains unchecked, can give birth to drastic consequences down the line.

There are people who say that religion is for anti scientific method proles since the scientific method can't prove the existence of a higher power. These people who try to describe humans as electrical circuits who are like we are due to electro-chemical processes that come from a combination of nature and nurture. So, at least this part they get pretty much right.

There is a prevailing tendency among radlibs applying the teachings of Critical Theory and the sort to dismantle archaic social norms but being totally oblivious to the truth that the same exact methods can be used to show how their ideals for a new society are also insane.

I think it's true to say that we have a system that does little to address the anti blackness of our country-- and this is not for lack of trying, it's due to the lack of understanding of how to do so successfully and/or a lack of political willpower to do so.

For many centuries the US produced blackness through mechanisms of domination and subjection that have yoked, harnessed, and infiltrated the apparatus of rights which result in further social and real death. . 

Black existence is simultaneously produced and negated by racial domination both as presupposition and consequence. Affirmation of blackness proves to be impossible without simultaneously affirming the violence that structures black subjectivity itself. Africans went into the ships and came out as Blacks. The latter is a Human and a metaphysical holo caust (caused by the US in particular)

Then after all of the above many centuries of anti blackness, the US turns around and magically says, "my bad." 

Yet the US keeps allowing more than half of African Americans to languish in poverty or almost poverty, and think there is not to be any lingering psychological issues at all on top of the anti blackness of our society where Blackness itself is still criminalized? I expand on this here

Why can't African Americans sit back and adopt good bourgeois values of stroking the reward system?! /s

The first tangible step is by having a system that is actually worth contributing to.

I think there are three regular justifications for this attitude expressed by Jon Stewart here. 

The first justification, is the genuine liberal 2.0’s refusal to acknowledge the inherent exploitation of capitalism. For this particular group, the issue is that exploitation occurs along racial lines, not that it occurs at all in the first place.

The second justification are the reform minded liberal 2.0ers. Either they are afraid of or doubt the likelihood of big structural reform and promote corrective action in order to alleviate racial disparity and bring material benefit.

The third justification are the race essentialists, or the people who unwittingly buying into this type of framework, across the political spectrum. For the liberal 2.0 edition, this particular group commonly believes that exploitation, abuse, and persecution are 'white' issues.

From Jon Stewart's own history I believe that he falls into the second group above, but he runs uncomfortably near the third group above. All are in reality inadequate since they do not correct injustice, but instead reshape it. Though the essentialist does the biggest harm insofar as they reinforce the delusion of race and further muddy class consciousness.

I like Jon Stewart.

However, his episode here.  i.e ‘The Problem With White People’ really irks me. In case you didn't get the memo from Jon Steward, Leslie Jones used The Racist Spectrum on Jon’s show 

Here's the lowdown, there is anti blackness in this country. There's been anti blackness here since the 17th Century.

The Problem Of When Liberals 2.0ers speak about the similar concept of Systemic Racism is that they don't truly understand what the word "systemic" means

Liberal 2.0ers are in so much of a hurry to virtue signal so that they could get to their precious thing - feeling superior - that they skip over the part that really matters to draw attention on the perceived racism of people with less power.

Systemic means "system". Anti blackness is a political and economic system built on anti black racism

So who had the ability of designing anti blackness structures? It sure as heck wasn't poor whites

In spite of whatever rich liberal 2.0ers may tell you, poor people (of any race-ethnicity) don't have a say in the make up of the political and economic system. 

In fact, if you see places, like for example an inner-city area, you'll see that it is far more racially diverse than something like a rich gated community. Poor whites live among poor blacks way more commonly than rich white liberal 2.0ers live among people of other races.

So when white liberal 2.0ers lecture about RedLining, they do not make the most simple observation: RedLining was mostly anti blackness structure and was done by the upper-middle and rich classes, not by the working class. The working class typically couldn't just pick up and move.

The Hollywood, and media tropes of a white racist is a person in the white working class. It's pretty much never someone who is rich. This framing is so generally seen that it doesn't even have to be spoken out loudly.

Yet who is more likely to be racist - the poor person living next to the family of another race, or the wealthy white person who moves to another community just to get away from black people?

The under-funding of public k-12 education in poor neighborhoods. It's the upper classes who does this, both for the reason they don't desire to have their taxes to go assist poor people, and due to the wealthy desiring to privatize public education so they can gain more profits.

Poor whites don't desire this. They in fact get hurt by such policies too. Not only African Americans.

And let's not forget health care, where the white working class overwhelmingly wants health care reform. The black working class also wants this too. Our health care system would not be called discriminatory via racism or classism, if we had something like universal health care.

Do you know who doesn't want everyone to get health care? The mostly white upper-classes.

It was the African American community that insisted that the word "systemic" be added to the talks on racism, 

White liberal 2.0ers pretended to be in tune to the reason African Americans included this word, but didn't. To liberal 2.0ers it's only an adjective that makes them seem smarter.

The real pressing issue is that liberal 2.0ers will not, under any circumstances, discuss class. And as long as everyone refuses to have a discussion about class, then we will never be able to fix what Liberal 2.0ers perceive to be systematic racism

Instead all that is occurring is rich white liberal 2.0ers virtue signaling their morality and wholesomeness, saying people should look at what they see as systemic racism in public schools, housing and prisons and going on go say if everyone stopped being racist like them, all of that would magically. disappear and we’d be in their post racism utopia and dreamland

Rich white liberal 2.ers are purposely ignorant and wrong on this particular issue. Because to acknowledge and tackle things like I lay out, they would need to question the exact systems that have served them so fairly.

Isn't describing a large swath of ethnically diverse people "white people" as Jon Stewart does in the above video racist too?

Racism exists in the US (due to the US being built on anti blackness structures). To what exact extent, is up for debate. 

I don’t really have info on how prevalent redlining still is , though prisons were creates on anti black foundations

However our country is less racist than previously and it could be among the lesser racist countries in the world currently. This is of course not enough for the upper class liberal 2.0er, nope, ZERO progress can be made until bigotry has been 110 percent eliminated

We know such to be the case since it’s reached the point where the demand for racism has exceeded the supply, there’s merely not enough and so it has to be invented

Labels like cultural appropriate and micro aggressions assist in serving such a purpose. More clear examples like the Jussie Smollett hoax, which I can point out, BLM actually still fully supports. Again this is not to claim that actual racism isn’t in existing around us. But at the point we are at, there’s not as much as it could be, so people need to find ways to create more. 

I have no doubt the “dismantling white supremacy” stuff is intended particularly to stir up more racial tension. 

45 was propped up by the DNC due to the pied piper strategy. White reactionary politics are the complete point of neoliberalism, not the side effect of it

As John McWhorter has pointed out, when is the point where we can start putting some work in? 

Former President Barack Obama stated during his presidency that African Americans were 90 percent of the way to the finish line in terms of civil rights thanks to those activists who proceeded him. 

These times a lot of race extremists make it seem as if literally ZERO progress has been accomplished since the end of slavery and former President Barack Obama would receive backlash for stating such an true statement now. 

Afro Pessimism is pessimist about the state of anti blackness its anti black racism offshoot, as detailed here and I highlight here

Though Afro Pessimism does state African Americans can of course achieve some status in society through “structural adjustment” (i.e., a kind of “whitening” effect), as has been superficially confirmed. 

Though Blackness as a racialized category remains the object of gratuitous, constituent violence—as demonstrated by police murders, mass incarceration, urban planning, and surveillance (from cointelpro to special security codes at stores to indicate when Black customers enter).

Afro Pessimism says that Black people in the words of Professor Wilderson live their existence as what he calls ‘slaves’. 

Professor Wilderson writes that “one could say to someone that you are a professor at UC Berkeley and there is a person in a sweatshop on the other side of the Rio Grande. This person in the sweatshop is working sixteen hours a day, cannot go to the bathroom, dies on the job from lack of medical benefits... and you are a kind of labor aristocrat. 

And they could say, “Okay, well that’s interesting.” And you could say to that person, “But if you read the work of Antonio Negri, the Italian communist, you come to understand that even though you live your life as a proletarian differently than a sweatshop laborer, you both stand in relation to capital in this same way, at the level of structural, paradigmatic arrangement.” That person would say, “Oh yeah! I get that, I get that.” 

You say to someone that all Blacks are slaves and that we’re going to change the definition of slavery because the other things are not definitions, they are actually anecdotes, and your teacher in third grade told you that you don’t use an anecdote to define something. 

And that person says, “Oh wait a minute, I know a person who’s richer than me and also Black and they live in the Tenderloin...” and it just goes off to the races. 

It’s a symptomatic response primarily because they understand that what Black people suffer is real and comprehensive but there is actually no prescriptive, rhetorical gesture which could actually write a sentence about how to redress that. 

Most Americans, most people in the world, are not willing to engage in a paradigm of oppression that does not offer some type of way out. But that is what we live with as Black people every day.

“When a state is stable in a capitalist dispensation, such as Canada, then there is an equilibrium between force and consent. In other words, one of the things you have in a “good” (for capitalists) dispensation is a smooth situation. 

So for the hundreds of years it took to develop capitalism, there was all this violence. Once people have been remolded from peasants and whatever else into workers, then in a capitalist dispensation, just as in a patriarchal dispensation, the violence goes into remission. 

That’s what Antonio Gramsci means by equilibrium. Violence goes in remission and it only needs to rear its ugly head in those singular moments, which hopefully are not global for the capitalist, when the working class refuses or transgresses those symbolic codes that it has consented to”

“owned by someone else—you take that out of the definition of slavery and you take out forced labor, and if you replace that with social death and those three constituent elements, what you have is a continuum of slavery-subjugation that Black people exist in and 1865 is a blip on the screen. It is not a paradigmatic moment, it is an experiential moment, which is to say that the technology of enslavement simply morphs and shape shifts—it doesn’t end with that.”

Orlando Patterson countered by saying “We're going through a period of extreme despair about the situation of African-Americans. The most extreme form of this despair is a movement called Afro-pessimism, which holds that Black Americans are still viewed as they were viewed in the slavery days as different, inferior, and as outsiders. 

I find myself in an odd situation because the Afro-pessimists draw heavily on one of my books, 'Slavery and Social Death,' which is ironic, because I'm not a pessimist. 

I don’t think we're in a situation of social death, because one of the elements of social death is that you're not recognized as an integral member of the civic community, the public sphere, and we certainly are, on the political and cultural levels. And we're very integrated in the military, which is the quintessence of what defines who belongs. The Afro-pessimists are right, though, to point to persisting segregation in the private sphere."

Anyway let’s pivot back from that. How on Earth can people act in all seriousness that they honor MLK Jr and Rosa Parks and at the same time act like MLK Jr and Rosa Parks literally accomplished nothing and that the US is just as racist like they say or in some way more racist than it was under Jim Crow. Because this is stuff that rich people say, I’m confident they’ve said in on The View too.

I believe the “pull yourself up from your bootstraps” mantra is lame yet there are genuine stuff that African Americans can be doing to enrich their lives and their communities. 

Things such as workers unions, community firearm safety training and beginning neighborhood watches, creating solidarity with other racial groups as opposed to the constant infighting. Odd how this sort of stuff is never on the forefront of neoliberal politics, and it even appears like it threatens the ruling class…?

According to the liberal 2.0 elites their only way past this is to yell about racism and to tell all African Americans that they will have major hurdles in life due the ghost of racism still haunting them now and of course forever. 

These Liberal 2.0 elites say they should never spend the needed time and energy to build up their community because in some twisted way that only serves ,in the Liberal 2.0ers imagination figment to reinforce white, cisgender, heterosexual supremacy.

I really hope I am being ironic. I really hope the Boondocks would come back

“A danger, however, is that, when reckoning with the past becomes too much like allegory, its nuances and contingencies, its essential open-endedness, can disappear. 

Then history can become either a narrative of inevitable, progressive unfolding to the present or, worse, a tendentious assertion that nothing has ever changed, and both divesting the past of its discrete foreignness and contingency or reducing it to the warm-up act for the present are handmaidens of ruling class power. 

The danger of that tendency is especially great in moments of ruling class triumphalism such as this one” Adolph Reed Jr., The South: Jim Crow and Its Afterlives (2022), chapter 5.

The whole notion of 'systematic racism' is a Liberal 2.0/ lefroid parable-moral tale that is used to further divide and disarm the proletariat against each other.  

I also echo this video by Professor Adolph Reed and WBM here "The Misguided Fixation on Racial Disparities"