Are black people human beings that possess characteristic human behaviors, or no? — Harry Hindu

Yes.

It seems to me you've tangled and knotted yourself up in language. The words in question here each have differing meanings. Race, at one time, seemed to mean something and people took it to mean something, which meaning is now known and understood to be meaningless . But that taking was/is to evil purpose and so the word itself is poisoned. Racist is now a person who deals in evil and poison. Discrimination comes in flavors both good and bad, as in to tell the difference and to discriminate against. My point is that in argument - discussion - the words matter, and it's useful and sometimes necessary to pay attention to what they mean, mainly to avoid category error and even more obvious foolishness like wanting to ban "discrimination."

But underneath there is the sense of the matter. Your question above is clearly rhetorical, but at the same time has left behind any sense of the matter, and is thus absurd. Absurdity certainly has it's uses, but it's best employed when it still contains some sense. That gives it its edge, else it's just non-sense.

As to the sense of the matter, though, we seem in near 100% agreement and it's not clear to me there's enough difference left to argue over. in any case I yield to the sense of the videos provided above by fdrake.

Watch the videos and stop writing until you do. The more you write, the more you will see how foolish you're being when you watch them. Ignorance is excusable because it's the founding condition of us all. But you've been pointed to knowledge now some four or five times. At that point ignorance is just being stupid. Why would a smart guy be stupid?

Interesting to think that from the first cell in the Precambrian soup to me is just a matter of genetic drift, mutation, and occasional isolation. It must be true, but it makes everything a little closer and cozier than I'm altogether comfortable with. We're family, practically fraternal twins! Can you lend a brother a quick $30,000?

I have a 10 hour video for you to watch on race. I'd like you to watch it and then respond with an 8-10 page paper properly annotated (MLA format). Until then I refuse to engage you on this topic!

A little variation can matter a lot between species.

I was referring to a little within species; humans. The race categories we're familiar with have no genetic support for their biological relevance.

But underneath there is the sense of the matter. Your question above is clearly rhetorical, — tim wood

No. It's logical.

Are black people human beings that possess characteristic human behaviors, or no?
— Harry Hindu
Yes. — tim wood

Then it can be possible that blacks are being racist against whites. When it is black on white crime, is it necessarily racism on the part of the black person? It doesn't seem that we are applying the same rules to all, equally.

If race is arbitrary, then why are we so concerned about black representation in government? Just as I should see a human being, not a black person, on the ground with a knee on their neck, blacks should see themselves when unarmed whites are being shot by police at twice the rate, and protest when it happens.

Intelligent human beings can see the contradictions - the hypocrisy - and ignore it. It's a shame because we really do need change in law enforcement - for all. Even if you are breaking and entering, stealing cars, or other petty theft, you don't deserve to be assaulted physically or shot in the back while running. Cops can assault you without fear of you fighting back because to an "assault a police officer" is a crime.

Interesting to think that from the first cell in the Precambrian soup to me is just a matter of genetic drift, mutation, and occasional isolation. It must be true, but it makes everything a little closer and cozier than I'm altogether comfortable with. We're family, practically fraternal twins! Can you lend a brother a quick $30,000? — tim wood

How about I just feed you to my pet lizard?

A little variation can matter a lot between species.

I was referring to a little within species; humans. The race categories we're familiar with have no genetic support. — fdrake

Differences between species are merely differences between "races" built up over longer periods of time of being isolated from each other. Humans were isolated geographically and genetic drift had begun to take effect in the human genome. It just so happens that we have found each other again before complete genetic isolation happened where the changes that built up prevented us from sharing genes and producing viable offspring.

If race is arbitrary, then why are we so concerned about black representation in government? Just as I should see a human being, not a black person, on the ground with a knee on their neck, blacks should see themselves when unarmed whites are being shot by police at twice the rate, and protest when it happens.

Intelligent human beings can see the contradictions - the hypocrisy - and ignore it. — Harry Hindu

There's the not-so-small matter of history, and also the matter of the dynamics, both inner and outer workings, of these things. For me the flaw lies in the "should." How often have you been in some some circumstance that "should" be a certain way, and as it happens, isn't? And of those, when you've thought about them, in how many has the "should" been revealed to be an ignorant mistake? As in, for example, "That should fit, it's the same size as the other one." And it doesn't, because it wasn't, and you were just too lazy to measure. And this "should" is a great problem, because in many usages it obscures, sometimes completely, whatever the real issue is. In sum, forget the "should"; it's a real word with real applications, but too many times and too much is misused and misapplied.

If you "should," for example, just see the knee on the neck, and not the people for who and what they are, then you have arbitrarily thrown out data that might just be important. You wish to ignore the hypocrisy? What do you do with the hypocrite, having disqualified knowledge of same?

The machinery of life doesn't operate by "shoulds"; instead it's operated, adjusted, maintained, by greater or lesser mechanics. That is, by people who get their hands dirty with the real work of the thing. That this "should" be that can be a useful approximation for first thinking, but should never tightened a bolt.

Comments, please.

Moved here as this is the thread focused on questioning the existence of systemic racism.

I have a 10 hour video for you to watch on race. I'd like you to watch it and then respond with an 8-10 page paper properly annotated (MLA format). Until then I refuse to engage you on this topic! — BitconnectCarlos

It's actually not me you're engaging with. It's your own ignorance and the possibility of painlessly, quickly, and even enjoyably learning. But you cannot be bothered - you're too busy! So don't engage at all. And back at your cave, or wherever you live, try to do as little harm as possible, which on the present topic means saying nothing.

You seem to be caught in a whirlpool of reaction to something. Break out of it: what's your point?

"Racism has the power to hide and when it hides, it's kept safe."

Having been a child in the Deep South many, many years ago, I grew up in a white culture which was, to many in the middle class, tolerant of people of color and kind as well, but nevertheless somewhat superior. The lower economic class of whites could be strikingly different. But I observed in my own extended family how prejudices could give way to understanding, even friendships.

I had a much older cousin who lived with his wife and children in an unpainted house in the woods of Alabama, complete with a hand pump in the kitchen sink and chickens and coon dogs in the dirt yard. He was a Klan member, and barely scratched by doing manual labor jobs. After a brief visit as a child I had no contact with him for years.

Upon leaving the Air Force in 1962, my wife and I paid him a visit. He no longer lived in a shanty, but in a nice brick home in a residential area. When he opened the door we saw a middle aged man, neatly dressed. He invited us in, and introduced his best friend, a black man who was a colleague at the nearby BF Goodrich plant which had opened in the late 1940s.

The transformative power of economic progress and equality should not be underestimated. But of course there's more to it than that.

The escalation of this situation can in each instance be laid at the feet of Officer Rolfe. Rayshards and Brosnan are doing quite well. They are borth friendly and respectful towards each other. Of course Rayshards' drunk and there's a danger that he will start driving again while drunk.

Rolfe enters the scene.

Rayshards claims he was brought to Wendy's. Rolfe refuses to believe that, except he doesn't have proof to the contrary. Rayshards does the sobrierity test and while they wait for the result, Rayshards offers to walk to his sisters house. Which is quite reasonable and a good solution to the current situation. Perhaps a fine would be in order but since nobody got hurt or any damages were caused and there's no direct proof of wrongdoing, a warning probably would've been best.

Instead, Rolfe wants to cuff a guy who, at that point, can only be said to be a nuisance for falling a sleep in the drive through. It's not clear to me why Rayshards is arrested. What Rolfe says "you shouldn't be driving" can't be grounds for the arrest, because at this point he can only be suspected of doing so. For DUI, especially first time offenders, jail time is normally waved. So the handcuffs are really a "wtf moment" for me. And that's where it all goes down south.

I think Brosnan up to and during the struggle acted reasonable. He explicitly states "you're going to get tazed" in the heat of the moment, which is a good warning and he doesn't draw his gun when Rayshards runs. It's once Rayshards has been shot, he too seems callous towards him because neither cop offers any medical support for Rayshards, who is still alive.

It's a damn shame, this entire situation, if you feel how relaxed and respectful the situation started between Rayshards and Brosnan.

Should affluent (mostly white) communities and private property remain whole and safe in the midsts of populations herded and hunted like cattle and sport by law enforcement (& white vigilante thugs)? Should anyone be safe in a society wherein a significant fraction of the citizenry, in fact, is not safe from state-sanctioned killers - even in their own homes (e.g. Breonna Taylor, Botham Jean, Stephon Clark, Rayshard Brooks et al)? — 180 Proof

It stands to reason that the anti-racist answer is NO.

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. — Letter from A Birmingham Jail (1963)

The police murdered a human being. — Harry Hindu

Agreed.

The color and sex are irrelevant. — Harry Hindu

According to you. The history of my parents, as well as my grand-parents and their parents and so on tell a different story.

The fact that protests happen as a result of a black person being killed when many whites have been killed by the same method indicates that White Lives Don't Matter as much a Black Lives. — Harry Hindu

White lives do matter if we take a historical comparison of the judicial system in their conviction between white men and black men (and women). Not to mention who is killed more per capita (see:https://www.statista.com/chart/21872/map-of-police-violence-against-black-americans/).

But then there are many more Black Lives taken at the hands of other Blacks, but no protests as a result of that either, so it seems that only Black Lives Ended by Police Brutality Matter is what "Black Lives Matter" really means. — Harry Hindu

This is a common trope many white supremacists use to discount, deny, and deflect to the issues concerning police brutality. Those that ask "what about black on black crime?" I simply respond, there is no black on black crime just as there is no reverse racism. There is only crime, and there is only racism. Black people live in proximity to each other, like whites, and Hispanics and any other demographic. Blacks don't simply go out looking for other blacks simply because they're black, some commit crimes because black people live next to black people so that argument is played and flawed.

"When an opponent of Black Lives Matters talks about “blacks killing blacks” it’s almost always to deflect attention away from police brutality. As if one issue makes the other more acceptable.

When someone commits an act of terrorism against in the United States, which rightfully leads to anger and sadness, no one asks, “Well what about how many Americans kill other Americans each year?” Because that would crazy, now wouldn’t it?"

See:https://www.cleveland.com/news/2020/06/stop-using-black-on-black-crime-to-deflect-away-from-police-brutality.html

Some smart dudes on Channel 4:

I'd say the school book story is that after MLK racism was solved, more or less. — Moliere

I would also say that is untrue however I believe the "school book" aspect was satire on your part

You're definitely on point

Have you studied why such things are in place? I mean I know why affirmative action in the beginning was in place?

Would “positive” racial and ethnic discrimination such as affirmative action qualify as systemic racism? Here in Canada there is the Employment Equity Act which requires federally regulated industries to favor women, people with disabilities, Aboriginal peoples, and visible minorities, or in other words, anyone but able-bodied light-skinned men. — NOS4A2

Have you studied why such things are in place? I mean I know why affirmative action in the beginning was in place?

I agree that racism is not the primary problem facing the African American community, — Hanover

As an African-American, I tire when people who don't share my experiences try to examine my experiences through their lens instead of listening and knowing our story.

we have a system that favors blacks, as you need to have a certain the color of skin to obtain certain handouts paid for by all taxpayers, to say certain words that others can't, to ignore the plight of others in favor of the plight of "your people" as if "your people" matter more, and to make assumptions about individuals based on what clothes they wear (police uniforms) and the color of their skins (whites are racists). — Harry Hindu

Do you have document proof that my black skin is favored? Handouts? Oh wait you mean welfare something that favors predominantly white women?

"whites are the biggest beneficiaries when it comes to government safety-net programs like the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, commonly referred to as welfare."

See:https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-welfare-black-white-780252

Is it not also well known that blacks commit crimes at a higher rate than whites? — Harry Hindu

If you want to go there sure per capita but it doesn't cancel out the greatest crimes committed by white historically both in the United States and across the world. Considering you call yourself "Harry Hindu" I would assume you know the well documented treatment of Indians from India and how the British during their tenure there created colorism among the Indian people but I digress. I fail to see the correlation between your mentioning of crime rate and what @Baden was saying.

If it is okay for blacks to use the fact that some police are corrupt to then make the assumption that all police are corrupt, then how is it not okay for police to assume that blacks commit crimes? — Harry Hindu

Fun fact: Majority of police (in urban communities) think people of color in low income areas are criminal hence the racial bias studies done:

"I’ve had more than one retired police officer tell me there is a running joke in law enforcement when it comes to racial profiling: It never happens . . . and it works. But the problem with trying to dismiss profiling concerns by noting that higher rates at which some minority groups commit certain crimes is that it overlooks the fact that huge percentages of black and Latino people have been pulled over, stopped on the street and generally harassed despite the fact that they have done nothing wrong. Stop-and-frisk data, for example, consistently show that about 3 percent of these encounters produce any evidence of a crime." See:https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/opinions/systemic-racism-police-evidence-criminal-justice-system/#Policing

So blacks are doing the same thing — Harry Hindu

If you are an intelligent person please stop with the pluralism in your words. "Blacks" aren't a monolith we all don't think the same. Considering you're talking about generalizations to @Baden it would behoove you to use phrases like "It would appear some blacks" or "some blacks" not "blacks" for starters.

The whole squad is here now, excellent.

@Nuke You proposed in your thread:

PROPOSAL: Every black American and American Indian should be provided totally free education (tuition, books, living expenses, everything) for any educational experience which can boost their income earning potential. This plan should continue until such time as the vast wealth gap between these groups and whites is erased. The plan should be funded by the richest 1%, that is, those who have most of the money and who have benefited most from America's rigged system.

I appreciate you starting your own thread concerning race and wanting us to present some proposals (or theories) on how we can eradicate racism. Let me be the first to say that although I commend your efforts in the above proposal, I must (with sincere regret) disagree. I've had a similar disagreement with members among the ADOS (African Descendants Of Slaves) camp. For one, it would be hard to convince 60.4% of white Americans especially those of the 1% to dedicate trillions of dollars specifically for Black Americans, to help them close the economic gap when there are many among the white demographic that do not believe such a gap much less systemic racism (or racism for that matter) even exists. Not to mention you will have an ethnic backlash from non-black taxpayers who feel personally that their money is going towards a demographic whose ancestors were enslaved and yet they (non-black taxpayers) will feel as if they're punished for a crime they didn't commit.

So therefore I ask myself sometimes " slavery aside, why is there more push back in recompense for African-Americans especially those who've suffered from reconstruction, Jim Crow, redlining, and civil rights which contributed to the economical gap?"

I recommend the documentary "The 13th" on Netflix/ online about the abolition of the thirteenth amendment and how racism changed over time. Very interesting and I think you'll find some answers there.

Have recommended this numerous times, it seems no one actually cares to watch it. But it does highlight the complexity of spotting modern systemic racism. It's easy for white people to think that in a neoliberal time as now, there's no systemic racism, but that point of view is extremely biased and singular in its perspective.

I also think that neoliberalism is the most effective way to create the illusion of no problems in society. All ideologies exclude some people in society, but liberalism, especially neoliberalism has hidden exclusions. Like "freedom and justice for all, except immigrants". It doesn't matter how the talk is when the walk of neoliberalism doesn't follow.

So within a neoliberal society, it's very easy to build up systemic racism in the most hidden form possible. Because when the neoliberal narrative in public is that everyone is free and everyone has equal justice, it's much harder to see the machine within forming such racism.

"The 13th amendment" on Netflix exposes that machine and how it was formed based on previous obvious systemic racism.

To deny that it exists is to ignore the evidence put forward. And to ignore that evidence is to be ignorant and unable to conduct rational thought. So far, no one who defends the neoliberal narrative has actually made any argument that addresses the facts that exist. They only sidestep everything with zero philosophical scrutinies.

I think that the reason is that we have a status quo of neoliberalism today and people live within this system. Any different perspective on how the world should be is not really an attack on a concept of reality, but the very reality that people live within. It's ingrained in their lives. You have to be a freethinker to actually be able to think outside the system you depend on and live inside. Otherwise, any different perspective from the status quo will feel like an attack on you and not the narratives of the status quo.

This is why I think there are so many who generally are rational people defend the status quo with such low-quality arguments and inability to see the obvious things put before them, sometimes even ignoring to participate in evidence or accept evidence since that would create an emotionally uncomfortable cognitive dissonance.

Some people are unable to accept a reality beyond the one they have lived within all their lives. It's basically Plato's cave.

The black community comes into the neoliberal cave to tell the white people in there how the world is actually made up... and they just laugh and dismiss everything as nonsense, because they cannot grasp that nature of reality as it is too different from their own.

The police murdered a human being.
— Harry Hindu

Agreed.
-Anaxagoras

The color and sex are irrelevant. — Anaxagoras

— Harry Hindu

According to you. The history of my parents, as well as my grand-parents and their parents and so on tell a different story. — Anaxagoras

But we're talking about the present, not the past. I noticed that you didn't mention yourself here. If your parents and grand-parents still experience racism, then show us so that we can call out the racists together.

Calling all whites and cops racist just makes you a hypocrite while insulting the people you are trying to convince, and I'm not interested in promoting hypocrisy. I am interested in promoting an end to hating people that are different than you, but being that isn't what you are doing, you are doing the opposite, then I'm not interested.

White lives do matter if we take a historical comparison of the judicial system in their conviction between white men and black men (and women). Not to mention who is killed more per capita (see:https://www.statista.com/chart/21872/map-of-police-violence-against-black-americans/). — Anaxagoras

People like you have an agenda, or else you would have also posted this link from the same sight:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

Notice how twice as many whites are killed by police than blacks. Why wasn't anyone marching in the streets after just one white person was killed, but only after a black person was killed. Essentially two whites were killed for every black and more blacks are killed by other blacks than killed by police or whites. This has been pointed out several times but is ignored. You need to be more intellectually honest if you expectothers to agree with you.

If you want to go there sure per capita but it doesn't cancel out the greatest crimes committed by white historically both in the United States and across the world. Considering you call yourself "Harry Hindu" I would assume you know the well documented treatment of Indians from India and how the British during their tenure there created colorism among the Indian people but I digress. I fail to see the correlation between your mentioning of crime rate and what Baden was saying. — Anaxagoras

Hmmm. It seems that you are forgetting all the crimes committed against blacks by other blacks, even in Africa before whites came with a need for slaves. It seems that you are cherry-picking your historical facts.

This is a common trope many white supremacists use to discount, deny, and deflect to the issues concerning police brutality. Those that ask "what about black on black crime?" I simply respond, there is no black on black crime just as there is no reverse racism. There is only crime, and there is only racism. Black people live in proximity to each other, like whites, and Hispanics and any other demographic. Blacks don't simply go out looking for other blacks simply because they're black, some commit crimes because black people live next to black people so that argument is played and flawed.
— Anaxagoras

"When an opponent of Black Lives Matters talks about “blacks killing blacks” it’s almost always to deflect attention away from police brutality. As if one issue makes the other more acceptable. — Anaxagoras

You're missing the point. If Black Lives Matter, then what about those blacks killed by other blacks which far outnumber the lives taken by whites or cops? Black Lives Matter isn't interested in saving black lives. They are interested in promoting an ideology.

It certainly isn't a deflection away from police brutality. Black Lives Matter is to deflect attention away from all those lives lost as a result of the actions of other blacks and how growing up in a broken home leads to poverty and the inability to move upward economically, for any race.

I've been advocating for police reform before this happened to Mr. Floyd because All Lives Matter, not just Black Lives. I am the one being consistent fighting for reform no matter which life is lost. The color of your skin doesn't matter. Life matters. Checking the power over our lives that others are trusted with matters. Racism is just one narrow facet of police brutality. Police brutality affects all of us. The fact that you are conflating racism with police brutality seems to me that you don't see police killing twice as many whites as brutality. So then are we fighting for two different things? Are whites and blacks so different that we need to have two different ethical standards for each?

So blacks are doing the same thing
— Harry Hindu

If you are an intelligent person please stop with the pluralism in your words. "Blacks" aren't a monolith we all don't think the same. Considering you're talking about generalizations to Baden it would behoove you to use phrases like "It would appear some blacks" or "some blacks" not "blacks" for starters. — Anaxagoras

If you were an intelligent person then you'd realize that you are being a hypocrite. If it is wrong for me to making generalizations based on statistical evidence, then it is wrong for you to do as well when it comes to police and whites. Or are you saying that blacks aren't suppose to be held to the same moral rules as other human beings? We don't hold animals to the same ethical standards as humans. Is this what you are trying to imply when asserting the idea that blacks can make generalizations about the way people with a certain skin color think, or the way that certain people that wear certain clothes (police uniforms) think, but it's not okay for whites or cops to do that.

But we're talking about the present, not the past. — Harry Hindu

The past sometimes leads to the present, hence is why civil rights movement existed. Hence is why we have modified laws in the Jim Crow era to make it equitable for all people in the present. However this doesn't change the fact that their stories are very important to remember.

I noticed that you didn't mention yourself here. If your parents and grand-parents still experience racism, then show us so that we can call out the racists together. — Harry Hindu

My parents and grand-parents have passed on due to cancer and other ailments so I cannot show you anything. I've experienced racism myself. I've also experienced racial profiling. Of course the level of racism I've experienced is incomparable to what my parents and grand-parents experienced.

Calling all whites and cops racist just makes you a hypocrite while insulting the people you are trying to convince, and I'm not interested in promoting hypocrisy. — Harry Hindu

Ok and where in my post have I done this?

I am interested in promoting an end to hating people that are different than you, but being that isn't what you are doing, you are doing the opposite, then I'm not interested. — Harry Hindu

Ok again where are you getting this from in my post? I'm confused how you came to this understanding.

Notice how twice as many whites are killed by police than blacks. — Harry Hindu

Yes because whites composed of 60.4% of the United States population it's really not rocket science here.

Why wasn't anyone marching in the streets after just one white person was killed, — Harry Hindu

You'd have to ask the Caucasian community.

but only after a black person was killed. Essentially two whites were killed for every black and more blacks are killed by other blacks than killed by police or whites. This has been pointed out several times but is ignored. You need to be more intellectually honest if you expectothers to agree with you. — Harry Hindu

I'm not interested in your agreement. In fact after reading your exchange with @Baden it was infinitely clear to me you weren't interested in looking outside your own biases. Now again whites comprise of 60.4% of the population which is why more whites are killed but per capita, more African-Americans are twice as likely to be killed by cops despite being 13% of the population. Also there is documented evidence of police racial bias through studies that have been done which is why some have called for training and education on correcting racial bias in policing.

It seems that you are forgetting all the crimes committed against blacks by other blacks, even in Africa before whites came with a need for slaves. — Harry Hindu

Ok, what goes on in Africa and the United States are different situations because whatever is in Africa you'd have to highlight a specific country and specific situation and relate it to the current topic. Something that is tribal based on a corrupt government is a lot different than what is going on here in the states. Just because two parties are both black doesn't mean their issues are the same.

If Black Lives Matter, then what about those blacks killed by other blacks which far outnumber the lives taken by whites or cops? — Harry Hindu

Black Lives Matter specifically focuses on the issues regarding injustice in relation to police brutality and the issues concerning the lack of transparency in police conduct in relation to communities of color. This has nothing to do with crime in the inner city. We all know crime happens in the inner city and plenty of grassroots movements are there speaking out against it. Again, violence in the black community has nothing to do with BLM rather its focus is on the unjust treatment of black Americans, however the BLM movement is very broad beyond the scope of nationalism at this point.

Black Lives Matter isn't interested in saving black lives. They are interested in promoting an ideology. — Harry Hindu

"With the movement’s attention comes a familiar refrain: Why doesn’t Black Lives Matter focus on “black-on-black” crime? When a civilian has committed a violent crime, they’re generally arrested, tried and then convicted,” Franchesca Ramsey, a writer and activist who discusses race, explains in the MTV series Decoded.

Conversely, there’s a lot of evidence that it’s very rare to secure an indictment against a police officer for excessive force. And an indictment is just a trial; it isn’t even a conviction.”

“Black Lives Matter" isn’t just about the loss of life, which is always terrible. It’s about the lack of consequences when black lives are taken at the hands of police.......


While nearly twice as many white Americans were killed by on-duty officers than blacks, the Post’s updated data showed, black Americans remained 2.5 times as likely to die at the hands of police when adjusting for population.

And when unarmed, the data showed that black Americans were five times as likely to be fatally shot as white ones."

See:https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/07/27/why-doesnt-black-lives-matter-doesnt-focus-talk-about-black-black-crime/87609692/

All Lives Matter, not just Black Lives. — Harry Hindu

If that were true, BLM wouldn't exist.

If you were an intelligent person then you'd realize that you are being a hypocrite. If is it wrong for me to making generalizations based on statistical evidence, then it is wrong for you to do as well when it comes to police and whites. — Harry Hindu

Where have I made a generalization about whites and the police? Where in my words have I done this outside the sources I've listed? Can you quote the exact words where I've made these generalizations?

:up:

Below are just a couple of facts from a recent WAPO article relating to the US justice system, any of which in itself demonstrates the reality of systemic racism. You literally have to deny this empirical data exists (along with that forming the basis of hundreds of other peer-reviewed academic studies) to continue with the conspiracy theory that there is no systemic racism in the US:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/if-you-dont-believe-systemic-racism-is-real-explain-these-statistics/2020/06/12/ce0dff6e-acc7-11ea-94d2-d7bc43b26bf9_story.html

[If you turn off javascript in Chrome you will permanently bypass the paywall, so definitely don't do that. :halo: ]

E.g:

1. "Police disproportionately stop African American drivers and disproportionately search African American drivers after stopping them, even though they tend to find less contraband."

2. "African American men were about 2 1/2 times more likely than white men to be killed by police."

3. "African Americans are far more likely to be arrested for petty crimes." Here's just one study demonstrating that "a black person more than 3 1/2 times more likely to be arrested for possession [of marijuana] than a white person, even though rates of usage are similar."

https://www.aclu.org/report/tale-two-countries-racially-targeted-arrests-era-marijuana-reform

Of course, rather than bite the bullet on the above what you tend to get are red herrings and distractions to do with BLM or whatever. Again, systemic racism does not mean that all cops are racist or there are explicitly racist rules in place in government bureaucracies or that white people don't also suffer from the failings of certain systems. It does mean that certain systems function in a way (often despite explicit intent) to disfavour communities of colour. And all that is required to demonstrate that is data on the results of the functioning of these systems. And the data is there. Lots of it. Let's at least accept that and move on.