"Then we need more effective laws. People still teach their children to be racist[...]"

What law do you think might address this problem, ghug?

(Or perhaps you were saying that the laws are needed to address the institutional racism that results from these private racisms -- in which case, sorry to misinterpret you).

I don't claim to have a solution. It would involve better policies of accountability within public agencies and possibly laws forcing private companies to have similar accountability when making decisions requiring hiring, promotion, and discipline. The problem is more deeply rooted than that, and I'm unsure about what else could be done.

"So how many racists does it take to male society racist? That is an
intellectually lazy bullshit argument. When society has laws in place to stop
institutional racism, society ceases to be racist. Any argument to the contrary is complete and utter bullshit."

How many grains of sand makes a pile? Is it 7??

It is how laws are applied and how powerful members of society act which makes it institutional.


@smeck "Then we need more effective laws. People still teach their children to be racist[...]" What law do you think might address this problem, ghug?

I might address this, it may not be possible to fix ineffective laws with yet more ineffective laws.

Taking the example of police officers targeting black drivers (say); if you instituted a quota system for a number of white drivers they had to pull over they could easily pull people over without cause and let them go...

Mos systems can be abused, and education can only go so far. You need a grassroots movement to look at problems locally and push for changes. on a county and state level. And taking the attitude that 'our laws protect everyone equally' does not help IF people are still not getting an equal opportunity.

In education particularily, you need to inspire students. If you tell the story of science (at least the way i learned it in school) it is all about old, rich, white, men - this excludes poor, non-whites and non-men... In some sense if you want to encourage kids to go into science&technology, they need to see it as something they can do, make a career of, and part of their culture. Otherwise you discriminate - not by telling the truth, but by failing to educate, failing to inspire. (and yes there were women who were marginalised in science yet managed to make huge contributions, ane whose history is untold, it is possible that more recently their history is overtold, but for the betterment of the educated)

The only alternative is to destroy their culture and raise everyone as equals without the baggage of the past - which may require the elimination of the family and re-writing of history along with measures to eradicate stereotypes in the media - oh, that might be a little bit harder to swallow, but sligthly better than eugenics/genocide, right?

Notice how the fucktard liberals can't actually define *anything* they are talking about? They don't know how many people in society are racist....but they know it's a lot (of course, THEY aren't racist....but *everyone* else is...). They don't know when racism is the action of an isolated few, versus the there being enough racist people to make society racist...they have no facts, no limits...they just know everything and everyone (*EXCEPT THEMSELVES*) are racist.

Fact is, MOST COPS do NOT pull over people just because they are black. FACT IS, MOST PEOPLE are not racist in their daily walk. The reason acts of racism make such big news in the press is because they are NOT THE NORM.

But, when you make your money off the race industry (Jesse Jackson and friends), then any act of racism *must* be portrayed as an act by the entire society...and then do-gooder liberal morons like Orathaic (Who is the ONLY white guy that isn't a racist, by the way...) jump on the band wagon because if someone says it's true, it must be...

I pity you racist fucks...and you are the racists here, because you are the ones that seek racism in every action by every individual. You are the ones that say blacks can't succeed without your help...who wink and nod at each other and say, "Oh yes, we are all equal....but those people over there can't make it without my help..."

You are the fucktard that are so stupid will admit that not every NE Patriot is a murderer, but then turn around and indict an entire society, and say 350 million people are inherently racist because of the actions of 1%...

....huh...1%....I guess we must all be filthy stinking rich, too, because 1% of the population is...

I'm off to buy my new yacht now, morons.

@'Orathaic (Who is the ONLY white guy that isn't a racist, by the way...) '

but it's ok guys, i'm perfectly willing to give lessons. Krellin you need some help? €20 per hour!

In the United States, black people are stopped by police, arrested, incarcerated, and held for longer sentences than white people are, relative to population (a black male is something like five times more likely to be incarcerated than is a white man). Black people are poorer, having lower incomes, have higher mortality rates, higher unemployment, and are less well educated than whites. Despite legal efforts to desegregate, American schools and neighbors remained largely racially segregated. Blacks are statistically underrepresented in almost all of the important measures of political and economic power: Senate, courts, Fortune 500 companies, and so on. These differences are not minor statistical anomalies, and some of them have gotten worse in the previous decades.

If you don't believe racism plays a significant role in American society any longer, to what do you attribute these apparently race-based disadvantages?

"possibly laws forcing private companies to have similar accountability when making decisions requiring hiring, promotion, and discipline. "

These exist already.

"(a black male is something like five times more likely to be incarcerated than is a white man)"

And? If black men are 5 times more likely than white men to commit crimes? You are confusing correlation and causation.

Draug, why do you think black men are 5 times more likely to commit crime? Either there's something inherently criminal about them, or there's some external force putting them into a position of criminality.

"underrepresented in almost all of the important measures of political and economic power"

The top guy in the nation is a *black man*. What the fuck do you liberals want?

"Draug, why do you think black men are 5 times more likely to commit crime? Either there's something inherently criminal about them, or there's some external force putting them into a position of criminality. "

I don't necessarily. I'm just pointing out that correlation does not equal causation.

'The top guy in the nation is a *black man*. What the fuck do you liberals want?' - in fairness Draug, he's only half black. :p

"If you don't believe racism plays a significant role in American society any longer, to what do you attribute these apparently race-based disadvantages? "

Correlation =/= causation. Showing that the percentages don't align does not imply causation, only correlation. You're an educated person.

"- in fairness Draug, he's only half black. "

And only 18% of the population is black so whites are still underrepresented in the whitehouse even with Biden being 100% white. 25% of the executive is black, but only 18% of the population is.

Draug, you seem to be implying that it's a coincidence that black people are disadvantaged in American society. If you're going to throw around correlation not equaling causation cliches (which, the way you are using it, would make all social sciences practically useless -- there's no way to definitively determine causative factors for the behavior of millions of different people), I can introduce my own crutches for thinking. Occam's Razor tells us essentially that the simplest solution to any problem is most probably the correct one. There is a large group of people of the same race facing a variety of social, legal, and political disadvantages. The obvious solution is that there is something about being a member of that race, either the way external groups respond or inherent characteristics, which cause those differences.

Also, given America's lengthy history of racial discrimination, I'd argue that the obligation to prove that America is not to at least some considerable degree a racist society falls upon those who claim it. Racism played a role in American politics and society for its entire existence up until some nebulous point in the recent past. When, exactly, did it change?

""The top guy in the nation is a *black man*. What the fuck do you liberals want? ""

Do you think the election of one man is more significant than the fact that there has never been until this Congress two black senators at the same time?

Also, I am by no means a liberal, and what I want is for Americans to not be so racist (among other things).

You can always tell a stupid american by their continued use of the pejorative "fucktard".

This has been a public service announcement.

Occam only applies to real science. You know, the hard sciences. And the wording you gave it is a distortion of the real Occam which I posted a link to a few weeks back.

What would be required to show the existence of institutional racism? What would be required to show that it does not exist?

You can not tease this out in a laboratory - so I do not understand why the laboratory sciences get the moniker "hard sciences". By comparison, their problems are easy.

The fact that blacks out number whites in the worlds largest prison population (both actual and per capita) undoubtedly has a "racial" aspect to it; there is a significant economic aspect as well, as the poor generally commit more crimes, and have less vigorous legal representation. Prisons are filled with poor whites, blacks, and Hispanics for the most part. Drug offenders make up a huge portion of the US prison population, and the drug trade is predominantly carried out at the street level by the lower economic, which is made up of most minorities.

There is no doubt that some black prisoners were wrongfully accused, convicted, and sentenced by a system with a racial bias -- and this is a tragedy. However, such occurrences are becoming less frequent, and as the older generations retire from benches and police forces and younger more racially tolerant people take over, it should become a thing of the past. However, going back to my statement concerning poverty -- poverty creates desperation, and desperation begets crime. Gangs and drugs are the culprits in many instances, and gangs are far more prevalent among poor minorities than among middle class whites.

"Drug offenders make up a huge portion of the US prison population"

Not exactly.

In California - the state most famous for its '3 strikes' rule, the portion is 9% for 2012.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p12ac.pdf

I wouldn't call that huge, at least compared to violent offenders - which make up 70%.

If poverty is responsible for crime - then what must be explained is why poor Appalachian states like Kentucky, with an above-average population density, have crime rates that are well below average.

Can't explain those low crime rates, but it not race. The Irish ghettos in NY, Boston, etc. in past were very dangerous, and there wasn't a black person to be seen. The people were poor and desperate, and crime was rampant. Ask any criminologist, and they'll tell you poverty is the #1 contributor to crime rates -- perhaps not everywhere, all the time.

But the problem is criminologist predictions about spiking crime rates during the recent housing crisis & recession haven't materialized. Instead we've seen a steady drop in crime.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576345553135009870.html

"If poverty is responsible for crime - then what must be explained is why poor Appalachian states like Kentucky, with an above-average population density, have crime rates that are well below average. "

If no one has a pot to piss in, there is nothing to be stolen. And in Kentucky, for instance, the population of its largest cities compared to its rural areas is not nearly as extreme as in states like Ohio or Michigan and LA, Chicago, and NYC have bigger urban populations than Kentucky has total populace.

Population density in Kentucky may not be as high as California, New York, or Illinois, but it's still higher than average, and its crime rate is substantially below average.

"If no one has a pot to piss in, there is nothing to be stolen"

You still have bodies to assault and/or kill.

But to what gain? What does it profit the killer? In the US, our biggest murder rates are in big cities and often is over drug deals or gang bangs. Neither of these exist in rural Kentucky or West Virginia. It takes a big city to have gang problems and drug dealers go where the money is which means the population.

Kentucky has population. Louisville is a city of 600,000. Lexington has 300,000. It has the 22nd highest population density and yet the 40th highest crime rate in the union. This has to be explained.