The issue is, if the policeman pleads not guilty, that he cannot be proven beyond doubt to have been responsible for the death. — ernestm

If the autopsy finds that even though the medical condition is part of the cause of death, it is still initiated by the act of the police. The fact that he wasn't dying before the police arrived and then he was dead is quite clearly pointing to the fact that the police is responsible for the killing. Otherwise, what evidence is showing that he would have died anyway?

With the facts that the police used praxis that isn't allowed (the knee) and didn't help when he pleaded for help, they can still be found guilty, whatever substance he had.

His prior arrest history has also not been reported in national news — ernestm

But that is a fallacious argument. It doesn't matter which history he had. Time served is time served. It doesn't warrant killing him in the street. Or should we accept police killings as long as people the people killed have a record? Sounds more like a "let them die" argument than anything related to facts.

If a trial found the cops not guilty because George had substance in his system and that he had a previous criminal record, then that is not based in law or in law praxis.

Unfortunately, he was on lethal drugs and had a prior existing heart condition, and he did not die while he was in a neck hold. The prosecutor cannot prove that the policeman caused the death. He might have died at exactly the same time, and been out of breath at exactly the same time, even if he had not been in a neck hold.

As I said, the other stuff is ancillary, but when courts are on such public display as this one will be, they will not want the fact that murder can't be proven be the first bad fact about Floyd that the public has to confront.

You wouldnt know I started working in gun control because, in 2014, I asked some members of a revived Tea Party group, who were part of the new wave of gun lovers, if they'd shoot someone in the back yard for stealing an apple from an appletree. Alot of them said they would, so I asked, what if it turned out to be a child you had shot? And they all did the same thing. They all called an attorney to defend their right to shoot a child. I was surprised about it, so I did ask alot of people. About 1,500 in total. Of the people who said they'd shoot a child, all of them said they were entitled to do so, so it was the right thing to do.

If I wanted to argue about whether it was the right thing to shoot children, they said, I could argue with the attorney who had told them it was legal. Then their attorney would show me snippets of prior cases proving it was perfectly in their clients' rights to shoot children for stealing an apple off a tree in their back yard. Many of the attorneys then scolded me for upsetting their clients who had thought there was nothing wrong with killing children for stealing apples like the attorneys had told them.

I did try to raise it as a moral issue, but that didnt count.They said, it was in their cleints' rights to shoot children, so it was the right thing to do.

Since that time, the gun lovers don't argue with me any more. This year, people of that mindset just insult me. So its now become an established fact, perhaps because of me in part, that shooting children to death is morally good when in 'justifiable circumstances.'

I never actually wanted to get into arguments about when people are 'entitled' to shoot children. Now it seems to me people have already decided they are entitled to judge policeman, usually based on 10 seconds of videotape, as racist murderers. On the whole, policemen are rough, because they deal with rough people. They have reduced the crime rate from 4.5 million in 1990 to <3 million last year, with an inverse increase of people in prison. This appears too much for people of whom a substantial number not only believe its in their rights to shoot children, but also, the right thing to do.

So I don't think its a legal issue. I think Americans have decided they know everything better than the experts. Americans think they know what they should do because they have rights to do it, and therefore do not need morality. Americans think they know what their rights are because they have decided what their rights are.

Americans are taught in first grade that their natural rights are 'self-evident.' In fact, they are not. France has different natural rights, and France thinks its own natural rights are self-evident too. So rights of individuals are not self-evident. It transpires Jefferson chose life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness because:
* taking a person's life imposes our free will over the ability of God to judge that person, hence, we have right to life.
* we must be free to make our own choices so that God can judge us too, hence we have right to liberty
* acting for the greater good, rather than for our own, results in the greatest joy, therefore, we have a right to pursue happiness.
But when Americans hear that, they have physical revulsion. Ive seen it. its like they are about to vomit. Its so contrary to the purely selfish motives they had assumed their rights self-evidently entitled them, they get physically ill just hearing it.

So authority was meant to promulgate from natural rights to constitutional rights, but it has God in it, which is even more offensive. I could say alot more on that, but by then I am referred to attorneys, who these days argue the law is true because it says so, not having any better argument left.

Its the same as what people say when they say obviously police should be disbanded. When I say that would cause alot more deaths and crime, they say crime and murder would not go up because they say so. So in the end, it turns out I actually agree with you. I dont particularly think there is anything so sacrosanct about what the law says should happen either, because the USA has entirely given up on concepts of the promulgation of authority from higher principals, and regards everything in terms of some kind of self-aggrandizement game and nothing else.

However, the fact remains, the law says, Floyd could have died anyway, and could have been out of breath anyway, so there is no way to prove that the policeman is guilty of murder. Sorry.

Its like watching one of those giant marble machines, which has no idea what it is doing at all, chew itself to pieces. All the marbles carry on bouncing around, but none of them have the faintest idea what they are actually doing. Floyd--of course he could be on the verge of death when he was arrested as a result of his own behavior, but according to current opinion, that no longer matters. Its like we are just marbles or something. Likewise, we are not responsible for the murders that would happen if we demand the police be entirely disbanded. It's like we don't actually control our own lives any more.

We are driven by drugs we can't control, and hatred we can't stop, in a world whose evil justifies any action we decide is right because we think so, without even understanding how we had those rights in the first place, and if we learn wny we have those rights, we are so repulsed we get physically ill.

In that respect, the police are really no different than anyone else.

and he did not die while he was in a neck hold. — ernestm

He lost consciousness because of the knee and later died. Or do you mean that if someone is shot and then they die later at the hospital because of an infection in the gun wound, the shooter isn't liable for killing that person?

He might have died at exactly the same time, and been out of breath at exactly the same time, even if he had not been in a neck hold. — ernestm

This is grasping at straws. It's like saying that if someone dies of a heart attack after being shot, the shooting had nothing to do with it. How can you rule out that the acts of the police weren't a catalyst for his medical condition? The act of putting the knee is banned by several police forces specifically because it can be lethal.

https://en.as.com/en/2020/06/06/other_sports/1591442963_890018.html

To argue that he "might have dropped dead anyway" and it's a coincidence that he died right there and then is extremely weak as an argument. You could free any manslaughter case based on this reasoning.

As I said, the other stuff is ancillary, but when courts are on such public display as this one will be, they will not want the fact that murder can't be proven be the first bad fact about Floyd that the public has to confront. — ernestm

You are making a bad argument against their guilt and conclude that "it will only be public pressure that would judge the cops guilty." You have false premises to back up a speculative conclusion that would be speculative even if the premises were true.

Where's your philosophical scrutiny?

Of the people who said they'd shoot a child, all of them said they were entitled to do so, so it was the right thing to do — ernestm

Yes, a perfect analogy of the reasoning behind systemic racism. If the system allows something to be divided out of race and there's nothing that guides morality outside the regulations, the people of power in that system can act as racists without even knowing it. Just like people in Nazi-Germany were conditioned to accept violence against jews.

If there's a system that entitles people to act in a certain way, it will normalize behavior through cognitive dissonance.

Now it seems to me people have already decided they are entitled to judge policeman, usually based on 10 seconds of videotape, as racist murderers. — ernestm

Systemic racism is more than a 10-second videotape, and there are more cases than just those 10 seconds of videotape. You also use an example that could be an analogy for systemic racism, in order to argue that people who stand up against police violence are the "entitled" ones who can't be reasoned with... do you see how ironic and ill-conceived that kind of argument is?

I would recommend you to view "The 13th amendment" on netflix in order to see the broader perspective in this issue. It's very good at showing that side of the argument.

Its the same as what people say when they say obviously police should be disbanded. When I say that would cause alot more deaths and crime, they say crime and murder would not go up because they say so. — ernestm

That is a strawman argument. They aren't saying this, they are saying that the police has more funding combined than all organizations that work to improve life in areas where crime rises due to socioeconomic issues. If you put money into building better lives for people, crime will go down. Crime doesn't happen in a vacuum, that's an illusion often perpetrated by right-wing politics to justify police brutality. And thinking crime happens in a vacuum is also a low-quality argument in terms of philosophy.

the law says, Floyd could have died anyway — ernestm

The law doesn't say that.

Floyd--of course he could be on the verge of death when he was arrested as a result of his own behavior, but according to current opinion, that no longer matters. — ernestm

The acts of the police is still wrong. You cannot argue against that with his medical condition and a speculative idea that he "would have died anyway". There's no legal validity to that argument and there's nothing that change the fact that the police acted out wrongfully. Here's a quote from the earlier link:

In Minneapolis, law enforcement officers were permitted to employ two types of neck hold (carotid neck restraints) on a potential suspect, according to the department’s Policy and Procedure manual, but only officers who have received specific training in how to correctly carry them out are permitted to do so.

However, former police officer and co-founder of the Police Policy Studies Council Tom Aveni, who has been involved in training law enforcement officers since 1983, told USA Today: "I have not seen anyone teach the use of a knee to the neck.”

So because it's not taught and because the police officer used a chokehold not sanctioned and because the result is someone losing consciousness and then dying, it has nothing to do with public pressure if the police officers are found guilty.

There is enough evidence to argue them guilty. Previous criminal history is irrelevant and a speculative conclusion that Floyd would have died "anyway" is not conclusive enough to warrant a dismissal of guilt.

You have to first prove that "he would have died anyway" before using such a conclusion for dismissal of the police officer's guilt in the matter.

Evidence?
— Harry Hindu
A stupid question deserves a stupid answer. And evidence? Well, MAGAt, you certainly qualify (as per your racist apologia post history). :shade: — 180 Proof

Then you haven't been reading my posts. Questioning the assumptions that you are unwilling to question doesn't qualify as "racist apologia", just as questioning theist beliefs isn't "atheist apologia".

And if I had made racist comments then I would have been banned long ago - unlike others on this forum making racist comments from your side stereotyping whites and cops as being racist. The rules aren't being applied consistently. If racism entails stereotyping others, then that is what tim wood is doing, and should be banned, but he isn't because he tows the line of the "left-leaning" forum.

No, asking for actual statistics is one thing, asking for pseudo-statistics that is argued in a form of fallacy is another. Did you even check the statistics given? — Christoffer

What is the difference between asking what percentage of cops are racist and asking what the statistics are of cops being racist? Stop trying to avoid the question. If you, or someone else has provided the statistics/percentage, then post a link. It is very difficult to find valid information in this thread, as it is mostly trolling and racist rants against whites and cops.

Here, I made it in meme format because apparently words are hard for you or something: — StreetlightX

"Hundreds and thousands" of people thought the Earth was flat and the center of the universe, but that didn't make them right. It made them the subject of a mass deluson.

It seems to me that politics and religion are the branches of philosophy where logic is thrown out the window.

What is the difference between asking what percentage of cops are racist and asking what the statistics are of cops being racist? Stop trying to avoid the question. If you, or someone else has provided the statistics/percentage, then post a link. It is very difficult to find valid information in this thread, as it is mostly trolling and racist rants against whites and cops. — Harry Hindu

Because that is not real statistics, it is speculative statistics that can never be achieved, hence pseudo-statistics. Statistics of police killings on the other hand is quantifiable and verifiable.
https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/
It also ignores everything about what systemic racism is, which is not about which cops are racists, but a deeper issue.

And "avoiding the question" after you avoid to tackle a long post of arguments is quite an ironic statement point.

You're so funny. If percentages are psuedo-statistics, then why did you provide a link with percentages?

. If percentages are psuedo-statistics, then why did you provide a link with percentages? — Harry Hindu

What are you talking about? I said that statistics that can be used are those that are quantifiable and verifiable.

But you are still just red herring the entire thing. You do not involve yourself with the arguments and conduct proper philosophical praxis to it. That is my point here. You are just blasting a biased opinion and ignore everything that doesn't fit that narrative.

Arguments have already been written down, if you ignore them, you haven't proven anything or given any conclusion to the contrary.

What are you talking about? I was asking what percentages of cops are racist. Is that not asking for observable facts - like how police treat blacks vs some other group and that the causes are actually racist and not something else, like blacks committing crimes at a higher rate than other groups?

But you are still just red herring the entire thing. You do not involve yourself with the arguments and conduct proper philosophical praxis to it. That is my point here. You are just blasting a biased opinion and ignore everything that doesn't fit that narrative.

Arguments have already been written down, if you ignore them, you haven't proven anything or given any conclusion to the contrary. — Christoffer

No, that is what you are doing.

The link you provided is skewed - psuedo-statistics. It never mentions that twice as many unarmed whites are killed than blacks, even though blacks are killed at a higher rate relative to their percentage of population. I'm trying to account for that discrepancy with the statistics of blacks committing crimes at a higher rate relative to their population.

It implies that all cops are racist without specifying what percentage of cops actually shoot unarmed blacks, and what percentage of those same cops also shot unarmed whites. That is where you are failing to understand. You are the one basing your arguments on psuedo-stats.

What are you talking about? I was asking what percentages of cops are racist. Is that not asking for observable facts — Harry Hindu

No, because such statistics is impossible to verify and quantify. We can use statistics of acts, we can look at laws and legislations, we can look at socio-economic issues, history, we can look at the prison system (13th amendment on Netflix) etc. in order to spot systemic racism.

like how police treat blacks vs some other group and that the causes are actually racist and not something else, like blacks committing crimes at a higher rate than other groups? — Harry Hindu

It doesn't matter if there's something else, that's the point about systemic racism. It's integrated in the system to such a degree that a single person can individually be non-racist but enforce a racist act as an agent of the state.

No, that is what you are doing. — Harry Hindu

So you didn't ignore the entire post and just answered on the first part, essentially just red herring everything past it? Need a reminder?

How many cops and how many whites in the United States are racist. Give me an exact number or at least a percentage. What is it?
— Harry Hindu

That is a fallacious statistical request. You should look at the statistics of how cops act towards black people.

You keep making these accusations that blacks are legitimately scared of whites, but forget that far more blacks die at the hands of other blacks, and they are legitimately scared at their own race.
— Harry Hindu

They are scared of state police violence. They aren't scared of white or black people, they are scared about being killed based solely on the color of their skin by the violence monopoly of the state. In the worst neighborhoods, you could fend off violence with defensive violence, but you are not allowed to defend against the violence of the state. That's why no one can step in and save someone like George as he is slowly dying under the police officer's knee. If that had been done by someone else in the street, the people would have been able to save him.
"Black people were 24% of those killed despite being only 13% of the population."
https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/

If you want to point the statistics that blacks are killed by cops and a higher percentage relative to their population, then you should also acknowledge that blacks commit crimes at a higher rate relative to their population.
— Harry Hindu

The differences in crime rates in terms of race is not an excuse for police killings. It's also ignoring the reasons for high crime rates within those communities. You seem to think that police violence is a detached form of systemic racism from the rest of society, but the very nature of systemic racism is that it exists throughout society. It's the systemic racism over the course of decades or hundreds of years that keep the segregation going, even though direct racist laws were abandoned decades ago.

You are arguing out of a notion of free will, when the deterministic nature of society is a proven fact. You cannot act or be acted upon in society without a deterministic causality link throughout history.

If the wealth built up in slavery is distributed among a majority of white people; if places like Tulsa, the "black wall street" gets destroyed, people killed in a massacre and their wealth stolen into the possession of white people: if housing laws segregated black people into parts of cities where the lack of wealth never increase the quality of life and no industries want to have shops... and so on, you will have a society that is built upon systemic racism since the system itself is governing how people "should" act within it.

A police officer is able to not be racist, but still enforce a racist practice of handling the job, because of the underlying systems.

To just claim that because crime is higher in black communities and because of that it's more common that black people get killed and that this is somehow a proof of there not being any systemic racism... is an extremely fallacious argument that ignores so many complex aspects of what systemic racism is about.

Your writing reflects a lot of what other people write, the surface level analysis of this issue. But in here, on this forum, I think there should be a demand for much better scrutiny of these questions than how the surface level Facebook-debates usually goes.

So first, are you a determinist or believer of free will? Do you think society acts separately from history and that history has no effect on the present events? Do you think that laws and regulations are the only forms of guidelines on which society behaves? Do you think that socioeconomic factors over long spans of time affect the conditions in which society acts and exists?

I see no such dive into these issues, only attempts at proving a point with biases and fallacious ideas. I think the discussion should get back into philosophical praxis, instead of these surface-level outbursts. — Christoffer

So, can you please conduct philosophical praxis or are you unable to do so?

Re-read my previous post. I edited it as you were replying.

Re-read my previous post. I edited it as you were replying. — Harry Hindu

Re-read the arguments (quoted as a reminder) about systemic racism before asking people to re-read yours.

Statistics can inform rational arguments, but you don't provide rational arguments in favor of the conclusion that there's no systemic racism. You only make statistical claims as if they were rational conclusions. That's a fallacy.

Statistics can inform rational arguments, but you don't provide rational arguments in favor of the conclusion that there's no systemic racism. You only make statistical claims as if they were rational conclusions. That's a fallacy. — Christoffer

I have yet to deny the existence of systemic racism. Asking for the definition of systemic racism is not denying its existence. It is up to you to provide a definition that fits observations and is logically consistent, as you are the one asserting its existence, not me. I'm willing to accept that things exist that I can't see, so show me where to look and what I should be looking for, so that I can see it too.

The fact that police shoot unarmed whites indicates that there are other possible reasons that police shoot unarmed suspects, other than racism. How do we even know that the reason the police shot the unarmed black person is the same as why they've shot unarmed whites? Why does it always have to be racism when it's a white vs black?

You're right, in that it is probably impossible to know the answer to that question because you have to know the motives of the person at that moment. You're already assuming racism when the color of their skin is different. That is assuming your conclusion. That is a fallacy.

Ernestm is talking nonsense. First of, Floyd's criminal record is totally irrelevant as they are not factual circumstances that contributed to his death nor can they be interpreted as exculpatory facts for the defendant, or worse, suggest "he deserved it".

The defense needs to prove that drug-use and heart conditions are underlying conditions that pass the but-for/conditio sine qua non tests and were the proximate causes. These are not intervening causes and in tort the frailty, weakness, sensitivity, or feebleness of a victim cannot be used as a defense. I don't see any reason why this "Eggshell-rule" would not apply to criminal cases. At most this will have effect on mens rea but not actus reus.

Even so, given the time Derek Chauvin had to change tactics on this defenseless, hand cuffed man and despite please from Floyd and bystanders he continued to sit like that for 8 minutes, clearly establishes mens rea to me.

Maybe not 99.9%. Maybe 100%, Or maybe 96.2%. And some more racist than others. The point is that you have not defined racist and I have. Being something-ist seems to be as water to a fish. Why do not you take a moment and try to figure out exactly what you think racism is - maybe you will understand then that it's all not-so-simple, although aspects of it certainly should be. — tim wood

I don't know the racial composition of the admins, mods, and owners of this forum, but I would assume that you're calling many of them racists.

I don't understand what your definition of racism is if what your doing isn't it.

so show me where to look and what I should be looking for, so that I can see it too. — Harry Hindu

I have, we all have.

The fact that police shoot unarmed whites indicates that there are other possible reasons that police shoot unarmed suspects, other than racism. — Harry Hindu

The statistics of the higher likelihood of black people being killed over white people shows that there is systemic racism in play. If that is because crime rates are higher in black communities, that is not counter to that conclusion, but supporting the existence of systemic racism, since being black is not the reason for higher crime rates.

Why does it always have to be racism when it's a white vs black? — Harry Hindu

Can you just watch "The 13th Amendment" documentary and return here please. See that and then return with some counter-argument to it. It perfectly describes the underlying systemic racism at play in US society.

It's important to be skeptical, but if you don't even attempt to take part in the perspective that argues there is systemic racism in play and concludes there to not be enough evidence, you are just ignorant. You've been provided with enough.

I don't know the racial composition of the admins, mods, and owners of this forum, but I would assume that you're calling many of them racists.

I don't understand what your definition of racism is if what your doing isn't it. — Harry Hindu

I wrote it a while back. Racial discrimination is a form of discrimination. The ability to discriminate is essential to staying alive - and this is just trivial. Racial discrimination, then, means at first cut that I, we all, are equipped with some metrics for telling differences between individuals. Insofar as we do, we're racists. Of course "racism" has a related and much darker meaning - again, obvious and trivial. So why be pedantic? Because what gets lost in the shuffle is the significance of part of what we do being part of, and a necessary part of, our DNA.

I accept the science that tells me there is really no such thing as race. But I do have various ways of deciding for myself who is more, and who is less, like me. The question isn't how can I get rid of that capability, but rather how I am informed by it, whether accurately or inaccurately, and more important, what I do with it.

While much talk is about getting rid of discrimination, I would hold that to be impossible; that is, for the most part that discussion is a waste of time. The ingredient that's missing is understanding and acknowledging that folks are different, and that fact in itself is of zero significance. Bad racism, the kind universally understood by the term, is really about behaviour, the attitudes that lead to it, the cultures that have brought it about and support it, and its effects.

I'm an old guy more than half-a-century removed from my school days and I can report that at least in some places there is real change. Among school children, for example, one can observe what appears to be real colour-blindness. I don't know how deep it runs, but it's a good sign. But it also reminds me that often the greater change occurs when certain attitudes, cultures, behaviours, just plain die out of old age. Which is not any kind of back-door appeal for tolerance for the intolerable. My own view is that full speed at all times is the right way to go, in terms of really every aspect of life where racism is in play. People are ignorant; people can be stupid; people do make mistakes; whatever is beyond these needs to be confronted and corrected as close to immediately as possible with appropriate penalties as needed, as a matter of standard practice - no incrementalism. The last true moment for incrementalism being the adoption of the Northwest Ordinance in 1787, everything since being a result of the failure to recognize that.

And had that been realized then, DJT would probably be working in a pizza shop.

But since leftist activism is acting against fascist developments, it will always be Antifa, since Antifa isn't an organization, but a movement under the idea of anti-fascism. So all activism from this political realm of thinking will be Antifa activism. It is also effective. Media and right-wing politics often label Antifa based on the ones doing violence during riots, but everyone who opposes fascism is being part of Antifa whether they like it or not. Infiltrating white supremacy movements, sabotaging alt-right propaganda channels etc. is as much part of Antifa as anything else. I think there's a big misconception about what Antifa is and the right-wing is taking advantage of that lack in knowledge people have. — Christoffer

I think you're short-changing antifa by saying any leftist activist is automatically antifa. To me it would at least take a conscious effort to be antifascist, rather than be, say, pro socialised healthcare. It has to be a major part of your motivation for the particular activism.

Agreed, but how do you define confrontation? If a society's status quo is mainly liberal right-wing, how can any voice of the left, not be confrontational? — Christoffer

Well, based on opinion polls about the current protests, we see that a majority of americans agree that there is systemic racism and that there is a problem with police brutality. That's a lot of common ground. But only a tiny fraction support anything that sounds like "defund the police". So, instead of making something that doesn't appear to resonate outside a very narrow group your rallying cry, start with something like "demilitarize the police". You can fit very similar policies under that heading.

But it's not though. By saying: "Black Lives Matter refers to how the police act as if "Black Lives don't matter", that would be enough for "all lives matter" people, but it isn't. Somehow, 30 minutes is needed to explain something that rationally should be quite logical and crystal clear. — Christoffer

Black lives matter is not one of the slogans I consider problematic. But look at how many different meanings the phrase "white supremacy" has. It's not surprising you get kneejerk reactions when you start out by calling ordinary people part of "white supremacy", not matter how justified that assertion is given your specific definition.

The problem is empathy and normalization. People today don't seem to have empathy like before. Because communication is held online and in text form more than eye to eye, people lose the empathic connection you have when you speak to someone right in front of you. https://liberalarts.oregonstate.edu/sites/liberalarts.oregonstate.edu/files/psychology/research/okdie_guadagno_bernieri_geers_mclarney-vesotski_2011.pdf
Since racism has become more normalized through people like Trump and it's less taboo to speak racist thoughts, while interactions is held mostly online and people don't have as much empathy against the opposing side of the argument, then the side that is less status quo in society will be looked upon as "unnecessarily confrontational". — Christoffer

I think what the online discourse mostly does is split people into different camps with increasingly deep ditches between them. The lack of empathy you describe leads to less desire to seek common ground, and more desire to reinforce your own values by way of negative idenitifcation. And I think this happens to everyone. The problem is that the extreme right wing already knows how to operate in such an environment. I feel that the left has a bit of catching up to do.

I wrote it a while back. Racial discrimination is a form of discrimination. The ability to discriminate is essential to staying alive - and this is just trivial. Racial discrimination, then, means at first cut that I, we all, are equipped with some metrics for telling differences between individuals. Insofar as we do, we're racists.

I don’t know if that definition works. By assuming all members of a race to be the same the racist proves himself to be indiscriminate. He can discriminate against groups, but that’s where his discrimination powers end. He is unable to discriminate between individuals.

At most, the phenotypes of a person hints at what his parents look like. Nothing else, I think, can be derived from it.

I don’t know if that definition works. By assuming all members of a race to be the same the racist proves himself to be indiscriminate. He can discriminate against groups, but that’s where his discrimination powers end. He is unable to discriminate between individuals. — NOS4A2

Which demonstrates the need for definition, lest people talk right past each other - often without even realizing it, or in the case of discomfort, why.

Recently there was the student who petitioned Merriam-Webster to change their definition of “racism”. It is no longer just racial prejudice and discrimination, but racial prejudice and discrimination combined with social and institutional power.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/11/merriam-webster-racism-definition-revise-kennedy-mitchum

That sounds absurd to me.

I think we should just go back to a simpler definition: racism is the belief that the species can be subdivided into “races”. Race-ism.

Maybe not 99.9%. Maybe 100%, Or maybe 96.2%. And some more racist than others. The point is that you have not defined racist and I have. Being something-ist seems to be as water to a fish. Why do not you take a moment and try to figure out exactly what you think racism is - maybe you will understand then that it's all not-so-simple, although aspects of it certainly should be.

Ok, I'll define it as someone who holds the belief that one race is superior to another. I'd also include in the definition the idea that racial groups inherently possess certain qualities that their members exhibit.

Are we on the same page as accepting the science that there is no such thing as race?

Are we on the same page as accepting the science that there is no such thing as race?

I believe race is to a large extent socially constructed, but I can't ignore biology entirely: It's no mistake that our greatest athletes and fastest sprinters are black. That relates to fast twitch muscles, but I don't think there's an immutable biological basis.

Google "Is there any such thing as race?" Short ans.: no.

As to the superiority of black athletes in America: I attribute that to the 400+ years' experiment in eugenics and drop-forging that is America's history of slavery, Jim Crow, and murderous suppression. Anyone have a different account? Even a brief survey of articles on-line shows that "race" doesn't cut it as a reason.

Genetic diversity might. The idea is that black people the globe around seem to have a much greater genetic diversity by far than any other group.

I am. The taxonomy is a false one. I repudiate it and I do not think it should be used as a lens through which to view the species. That is not to say that people are and have been unjustly “racialized”, thrown into such categories and treated in accordance with them.

Tim, it's not just American blacks. Blacks from all over the world dominate sprinting; it's not even close. You have Jamaican blacks, Canadian blacks, doesn't matter.

In any case I agree that race is largely socially constructed and even if one race tends to be better at athletics or any particular area on average that doesn't mean that they're "superior." Genetics is not fate. The Irish, Greeks, Italians and Jews were at one point not considered "white" and to me the question of whether they really are "white" is ridiculous.