Systemic / Institutional / Societal Racism

[epilogue]

What happened up there? One of you did a weird mod edit.

I hit "edit" instead of "quote". I fixed it.

[epilogue]

I will clarify: There is systemic racism. But where? Problems of the black community are our problems and we should do something about it. What, though, isn't clear to me. Do not carry on with life as normal.

Thank you.

[tree_]

No problem. Now tell me how I'm racist, please.

[Strat]

Im a little racist.

[Mickey]

Im a little racist.

Really? I've always thought of you as a taller guy.

[Bi_3]

No problem. Now tell me how I'm racist, please.

If you are not antiracist you are a racist because you are not fighting the power structures that re-enforce systemic racism. Sinner or saved, can't be both.

[tree_]

........ OHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh................

[E.H. Ruddock]

My partner is reading that right now

[tree_]

https://quillette.com/2018/08/24/the-pr ... ty-theory/

While a sampling of data makes the racial divide clear, it is not clear what should be done about it. Hence, the policy debates that drive news cycles, motivate social science research, and galvanize the tirades rampant on social media. This is to be expected in a large and diverse society. But what has become regrettable—intolerable, even—is the fervor with which progressives claim the moral high ground even when confronted with social science research which should make them pause and reconsider their convictions.

The notion of ‘white fragility’ is an unambiguous example of the slippery slope that can ensue. Invoking ‘white fragility’ when presented with serious critiques of the conceptual and methodological underpinnings of the IAT, the micro-aggression research paradigm, white privilege, and other progressive ideas, is like hearing someone blithely dismiss a rigorous critique of communism as ‘bourgeois.’ One does not have to invoke communism’s worst abuses to appreciate the hostility to scientific inquiry of those who wave away objections by attributing them to a white ‘racialized’ perspective (to use DiAngelo’s word). Socialization and acculturation are powerful forces in the development of one’s capacity to think critically about social, political, and economic issues, but they do not make it impossible. To believe otherwise is to replace the scientific method (ironically enough) with a reactionary reflexive need to categorize any objections—reasonable or otherwise—as manifestations of ‘white fragility.’ In other words, ‘white fragility’ becomes an Orwellian device to dismiss objections from white people in the same way that ‘bourgeois’ was a semantic weapon to dismiss the objections of ‘capitalists’ to communist doctrine.

[Bi_3]

https://quillette.com/2018/08/24/the-problem-with-white-fragility-theory/

While a sampling of data makes the racial divide clear, it is not clear what should be done about it. Hence, the policy debates that drive news cycles, motivate social science research, and galvanize the tirades rampant on social media. This is to be expected in a large and diverse society. But what has become regrettable—intolerable, even—is the fervor with which progressives claim the moral high ground even when confronted with social science research which should make them pause and reconsider their convictions.

The notion of ‘white fragility’ is an unambiguous example of the slippery slope that can ensue. Invoking ‘white fragility’ when presented with serious critiques of the conceptual and methodological underpinnings of the IAT, the micro-aggression research paradigm, white privilege, and other progressive ideas, is like hearing someone blithely dismiss a rigorous critique of communism as ‘bourgeois.’ One does not have to invoke communism’s worst abuses to appreciate the hostility to scientific inquiry of those who wave away objections by attributing them to a white ‘racialized’ perspective (to use DiAngelo’s word). Socialization and acculturation are powerful forces in the development of one’s capacity to think critically about social, political, and economic issues, but they do not make it impossible. To believe otherwise is to replace the scientific method (ironically enough) with a reactionary reflexive need to categorize any objections—reasonable or otherwise—as manifestations of ‘white fragility.’ In other words, ‘white fragility’ becomes an Orwellian device to dismiss objections from white people in the same way that ‘bourgeois’ was a semantic weapon to dismiss the objections of ‘capitalists’ to communist doctrine.

Huh. It's almost like....

[tree_]

The inconvenient truth is that the available social science research does not currently provide support for the ‘implicit bias’ hypothesis, so DiAngelo should reconsider her assumptions about the nature of racism, as well as her claims about the role of ‘white fragility’ in its perpetuation. She does not, however, appear keen to do so, despite being a trained social scientist with a PhD. For anyone who cares about the scientific method, that is both unfortunate and indicative of a willingness to subordinate facts and data to ideology.

This kind of thinking has a tendency to transform education into indoctrination. When the scientific method is subordinated to the eradication of ‘racialized’ perspectives, we cease to learn about the hows and whys of social and economic disparities across racial groups and instead become immersed in the propagation of ideas that lack support from social science research. At which point it becomes difficult to dismiss concerns that progressive activism is not about social justice at all, but about ideological intolerance and conformity, driven by agendas reminiscent of Marxist thought and activism. ‘White fragility’ has become the new ‘bourgeois’—an accusation sufficient to invalidate any heterodox opinion at a stroke.

[Strat]

The inconvenient truth is that the available social science research does not currently provide support for the ‘implicit bias’ hypothesis, so DiAngelo should reconsider her assumptions about the nature of racism, as well as her claims about the role of ‘white fragility’ in its perpetuation. She does not, however, appear keen to do so, despite being a trained social scientist with a PhD. For anyone who cares about the scientific method, that is both unfortunate and indicative of a willingness to subordinate facts and data to ideology.

This kind of thinking has a tendency to transform education into indoctrination. When the scientific method is subordinated to the eradication of ‘racialized’ perspectives, we cease to learn about the hows and whys of social and economic disparities across racial groups and instead become immersed in the propagation of ideas that lack support from social science research. At which point it becomes difficult to dismiss concerns that progressive activism is not about social justice at all, but about ideological intolerance and conformity, driven by agendas reminiscent of Marxist thought and activism. ‘White fragility’ has become the new ‘bourgeois’—an accusation sufficient to invalidate any heterodox opinion at a stroke.

he's saying a lot of words and talking in circles while not providing any other of his scientific data that might be evidence to the contrary of Diangelo's discussion.

[tree_]

The inconvenient truth is that the available social science research does not currently provide support for the ‘implicit bias’ hypothesis, so DiAngelo should reconsider her assumptions about the nature of racism, as well as her claims about the role of ‘white fragility’ in its perpetuation. She does not, however, appear keen to do so, despite being a trained social scientist with a PhD. For anyone who cares about the scientific method, that is both unfortunate and indicative of a willingness to subordinate facts and data to ideology.

This kind of thinking has a tendency to transform education into indoctrination. When the scientific method is subordinated to the eradication of ‘racialized’ perspectives, we cease to learn about the hows and whys of social and economic disparities across racial groups and instead become immersed in the propagation of ideas that lack support from social science research. At which point it becomes difficult to dismiss concerns that progressive activism is not about social justice at all, but about ideological intolerance and conformity, driven by agendas reminiscent of Marxist thought and activism. ‘White fragility’ has become the new ‘bourgeois’—an accusation sufficient to invalidate any heterodox opinion at a stroke.

he's saying a lot of words and talking in circles while not providing any other of his scientific data that might be evidence to the contrary of Diangelo's discussion.

You can't provide proof that something doesn't exist... it doesn't exist.

[Rob]

Are you saying implicit bias doesn't exist?

[Strat]

I glad you found a home with the likes of jordan peterson and johnathon church at quilette, tree. I really am.

Good luck to you on your life journey.

[tree_]

I am saying that in order to know something exists, you should require proof first. Otherwise, it is a faith based belief.

Strat, I didn't know who the guy was. I read the article and he made some interesting points. Care to argue against the points? I'm listening.

[BurtReynolds]

No problem. Now tell me how I'm racist, please.

If you are not antiracist you are a racist because you are not fighting the power structures that re-enforce systemic racism. Sinner or saved, can't be both.

According to the dogma everyone is racist. And denying your racism is only proof that you are racist. I don't know why everyone here is denying that they are racist. So fragile.

[Strat]

I am saying that in order to know something exists, you should require proof first. Otherwise, it is a faith based belief.

Strat, I didn't know who the guy was. I read the article and he made some interesting points. Care to argue against the points? I'm listening.

He didnt make any points other than "You cant prove bias with science so therefore i dont want to talk about it"

[Strat]

and i think there was soft core porn about how leftists will probably destroy the society

[tree_]

It's like you didn't read what he said at all.