Whenever I agree with @NOS4A2 over someone else, I feel they can just instantly be disregarded as a thinker with any possible merit.

Though I can understand the insult as a means to remind everyone of your bona fides, I’m sure we agree on much more.

Racism is in such short supply these days... — NOS4A2

Devaluing another group of people based upon the color of their skin is not in short supply.

Your head is currently up the ass of a bonafide racist.

Calling peaceful protestors "sons a bitches" for quietly kneeling during the national anthem, and then not ever considering the grievance, but rather insisting that that demonstration was somehow anti-American and disrespectful to American armed services, was a blatant act of denying black Americans the right to peaceful protest and the redress of grievances.

Your head is currently up the ass of a bonafide racist. — creativesoul

:100:

:up:

I gave more response than your response to my post merits.

Racism Ignorance is in such short abundent supply these days that those who profit off its existence have relegated it to the invisible and practically everynowhere, or in fact have become are racists themselves. It’s like St. George forgetting to retire after slaying fucking all the dragons. Pretty soon he’s just there, all alone, swinging his lance dick in the wind. — NOS4A2

:sweat: :up:

1. We're not in debate teams so there is no "your side". 2. Hypocrisy isn't a fallacy. 3. You haven't pointed out any fallacies yourself so you "missed" them just as much. 4. You were trying to have an argument with me and failed. 5. Your latest point is another big, fat red herring.

You're on fallacy number 4 now. You could go back to my initial comment and try again but I suspect you'll persist in missing the point. — Benkei

Strawman. Address what I wrote, Hindu, like you're not a disingenous tRumpy troll — 180 Proof

:lol:
This is rich - you both now want to be so "concerned" about logical fallacies after having blatantly committed them yourselves and didn't care, so why should I?

I gave up trying to have a reasonable conversation with you both a long time ago because you can't be consistent. You're counting ghosts again, as I never intended to be reasonable. You reap what you sow, right 180?

This is rich - you both now want to be so "concerned" about logical fallacies after having blatantly committed them yourselves and didn't care, so why should I? — Harry Hindu

This is again a red herring. Point the fallacy out where I made it or shut up.

Racism is in such short supply these days that those who profit off its existence have relegated it to the invisible and nowhere, or in fact have become racists themselves — NOS4A2

Exactly. Identity politics skews your view of the world where you see everything through the prism of your own skin color. Whenever a white man disagrees with a black man, it MUST be due to racism. If a cop shoots a black man, it MUST be due to racism, etc.

Whenever a white man disagrees with a black man, it MUST be due to racism. If a cop shoots a black man, it MUST be due to racism, etc. — Harry Hindu

Nobody here has argued that, so as usual a straw man fallacy.

When you post links to stats that show blacks being shot by police at higher rates relative to population, what are you trying to argue? All you have to do is go back and read all times 180 responds with calling me a racist and makes no other argument in his post, simply for disagreeing with him.

Reducing my argument to whatever statistics I might have shared is another straw man. Does it ever stop with you?

Devaluing another group of people based upon the color of their skin is not in short supply. — creativesoul

But that's the old, boring definition of racism. The new, exciting definition is power + prejudice, so even the most anti-black white south african or american black supremacist can not possibly be racist. it's not about what you believe it's about where you live and whether you' got the good guy (oppressed) or the bad guy (oppressor) skin color.

Racism (again for the slow fuckers way in the back) denotes color/ethnic prejudice plus POWER of a dominant community (color/ethnic in-group) OVER non-dominant communities (color/ethnic out-groups). Whether Hutus over Tutsis, Israeli Jews over Israeli Arabs, Hans over Uyghurs, Turks over Kurds, Kosovo Serbs over Kosovo Albanians, Russians over Chechens, Israeli Ashkenazim over Israeli Sephardim, American Whites over American Blacks Browns Yellows & Reds, etc, this description of racism obtains. — 180 Proof

You can add black south africans over white south africans to this list. I also wonder what's to be said about cities or even states where one group may be more in power than another but that's not reflective of the picture on a national level. How do we define the community?

Devaluing another group of people based upon the color of their skin is not in short supply.

Your head is currently up the ass of a bonafide racist.

Calling peaceful protestors "sons a bitches" for quietly kneeling during the national anthem, and then not ever considering the grievance, but rather insisting that that demonstration was somehow anti-American and disrespectful to American armed services, was a blatant act of denying black Americans the right to peaceful protest and the redress of grievances.

You cannot deny the rights of Americans by criticizing ultra-wealthy athletes. Have you gone mad?

By personally acting to ensure that the player would be punished for exercising the right to peaceful demonstration, Trump most certainly did deny those aforementioned rights.

By not even listening to the grievance, Trump most certainly did not criticize the grievance being levied.

He attacked the player, the players' mothers, and marginalized and/or trivialized the black American citizens in the process. All the while acknowledging neither the right to protest nor the injury being protested against. To this day, he acknowledges neither. He is the president of the United states of America, and evidently neither he nor you know the difference between a critique and a personal attack.

All the while he defends someone who showed up with a loaded rifle to what was an otherwise peaceful demonstration. That person actually murdered people. Trump defended the murderer. They were young, white, and went looking for trouble... but, they were supporters of his.

He was ready and is ready to execute young black men for crimes that they were accused, but turned out to be completely innocent of. He took out front page ads in major news publications attempting to influence the outcome... attempting to garner support for the execution of those black young men, simply because they were accused of crimes against a white woman. Had he been judge, jury, and executioner those innocent young men would be dead, and he would not have an ounce of remorse.

He is a fucking racist.

:up:

Say what you want, but you’ve deviated so far from the topic into a tirade of histrionics. Are you able to approach the topic without the typical Trump throat-clearing? Not once in that salad of words could you mention any racism, let alone any of the systemic type.

You tell us what you think Trump is - you have spent so much effort conveying what you think he isn't.

No, I'm from Scotland. Why did you bring that up? — fdrake

Because the situation is somewhat different in Sweden from Norway. Bigger problems, larger numbers of refugees, more crime, more racism. A racism that goes both ways.

Reducing my argument to whatever statistics I might have shared is another straw man. Does it ever stop with you? — Benkei

Straw man. You said no one here has said that. I showed that you and 180 did say that. Now you want to whine about me reducing your argument to some stats that you used to say what you just said you didn't say. Your inconsistencies reduce your arguments gibberish.

The fact that a small percentage of black people have achieved financial success is irrelevant to the discussion. — EricH

No it isn't. What does a society with systemic racism look like vs a society without systemic racism but still has individuals that are racist? It seems like the differece would be America circa 1800 vs America 2020.

Whenever a white man disagrees with a black man, it MUST be due to racism. If a cop shoots a black man, it MUST be due to racism, etc. — Harry Hindu

Where have I or 180proof said that? Nowhere. So now you're resorting to lying.

If your infantile interpretation of what I have said reduces to the above quote then your problem isn't just logic but language in general.

If a cop shoots a black man, it MUST be due to racism, etc. — Harry Hindu

I think this is true, but I also think Harry Hindu does not understand what he wrote, and therefore has no access to the truth of it. Perhaps if he gives the matter some thought he'll get it.

The question goes to causes. To the degree causes are left unexplored, unexplicated, to that degree the events are not understood.

I stand corrected. Someone did just say it. :chin:

The fact that slavery and legalized segregation are gone does not mean that systemic racism has disappeared. The fact that things are not as horrible as they were 200 or 100 years ago does not mean that everything is OK. By any unit of measurement, people of color are at a severe disadvantage - income, infant mortality, health care, jail sentencing, etc, etc, etc.

One more time. If you think that there is no systemic racism in the USA go do your own survey. Talk to some black people - listen to their experiences of what life is like on a daily basis.

'Systemic Racism denial' is nothing but 'Holocaust denial' redux. Orwell warns of doublethink like the tRumpy trolling by Harry Hindu, NOS4A2, et al.

Getting back to the original question, a quick check of such groups as, say, the major political party federal legislators, the Fortune 500(r) CEO's and the US prison population should show, within reasonable statistical limits, a distribution of racial and ethnic people as we find in the US in toto.

To the extent that the distribution is skewed, causality requires reasons.

One reason is systemic racism or anti-ethnic bias.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.

On September 23rd, 2020 the men who killed Breanna Taylor's were not charged for her murder. 65 years ago to the day, Emmet Till's murderers were also found not guilty. Obviously no systemic racism in America.

But the wall that got shot definitely required justice because who the fuck cares about dead black people when private property was harmed? White walls matter.

In case it wasn't already obvious that private property matters more than black lives: it's right there, in the fucking judgement of the law. People need to get it through their thick skulls that this isn't some polemical left-talking point. Private property > black lives.