Comment by jahaja | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jahaja | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> You do realize that I think exactly the same about you, right? To assume that your perspective is so superior, that it gives you a right to ignore civil protocol, is incredibly arrogant.

> absurd allegation of systemic racism

So the contents of this article is blatantly false? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism

I'm curious to know about what year you think, approximately, that systemic racism against black Americans ceased?

That you find me uncivil doesn't really bother me.

> "The formal structure of institutions, as defined by their formal usually written rules, is the best description of their systemic/institutional properties. Only laws and other formal structures can have a systemic effect, and anything institutional by definition consists solely of them.

One can stretch the definition of systemic/institutional a bit to also include the social contract.

In neither case can one claim there is anything except systemic/institutional racism in favor of black Americans."

As I thought. You have just decided to entirely redefine the accepted definition of systemic/institutional racism so suit your argument. "But it doesn't say anything about race in this formal document!". Ignoring anything - apparently no matter how established and prevalent - that goes against your arguments is the fallacy of cherry-picking.

The definition at the outset of the article is accurate, and consistent with what I said:

>>Institutional racism, also known as systemic racism, is a form of racism that is embedded as normal practice within society or an organization.

Anything "embedded as normal practice" is either part of the formal rules of the organization, or its informal social contract, just as I described.

Much of the rest of the article doesn't describe anything systemic or institutional, or it doesn't describe racism, so yes it's blatantly inaccurate. Wikipedia is articles that any one can edit, and when there is such an extreme ideological bias in the Humanities and Social Sciences, there is always the risk that the articles begin to reflect ideological conceptions of these terms, that don't match the words that the terms contain, like "institutional" and "racism".

>>I'm curious to know about what year you think, approximately, that systemic racism against black Americans ceased?

I think the end of Jim Crow laws was the end of most institutional racism, with some remnants of it existing in the social contract that was quickly dismantled in the 1970s, as society took a severe stance against anti-black discrimination.

But now we have institutional sexism and racism in favor of groups that are deemed to be disadvantaged, like women and black Americans.

>>You have just decided to entirely redefine the accepted definition of systemic/institutional racism so suit your argument.

Accepted by who? I don't accept the socialists' definition of "slavery" or "expropriation of surplus value", to include workers earning a wage, and investors earning a profit, respectively, either.

Alright, so you've redefined the entire concept into something else and then went about dismissing the established concept entirely. Because that is, unlike your objective science, based on "extremely ideologically biased humanities and social sciences". Good for you.

> I think the end of Jim Crow laws was the end of most institutional racism, with some remnants of it existing in the social contract that was quickly dismantled in the 1970s, as society took a severe stance against anti-black discrimination.

This is just staring oneself blind on the letter of law, ignoring everything else. That's not how societies work.

It's pointless to discuss subjects with someone who will just redefine them entirely and then refuse to even recognize anything else - everything else is now false, no matter how established. If this is not trolling it's at least dragging the level of discussion into never ending discussion of definitions and revisionism.

I'm referring to the terms "institutional" and "racism", when put together. If an ideological camp wants to put the terms together, and refer to a class of properties that are not both institutional and racism, I have no obligation to accept their arbitrary redefinition of the terms, and I can point out that the term is extremely misleading, like the "wage slavery" used by Marxists.

>>This is just staring oneself blind on the letter of law, ignoring everything else. That's not how societies work.

This is just ignoring what the terms "institutional" and "racism" mean, to push a grievance ideology narrative that castigates society.

I'm commenting on "institutional racism", not racism in general. Institutional racism is "racism that is embedded as normal practice within society", which only occurs through the mechanism of systemic properties like its laws or rules, or its social contract, just as I explained.

>>It's pointless to discuss subjects with someone who will just redefine them entirely and then refuse to even recognize anything else

You're the one redefining "institutional" and "racism", and resorting to ad hominem when any one points out the pure absurdity of your narrative.

> Institutional racism is "racism that is embedded as normal practice within society", which only occurs through the mechanism of systemic properties like its laws or rules, or its social contract, just as I explained.

Come on. You've cherry-picked a single vague line from the preamble of that article because it's so general that it also fits your narrow definition. The rest of the article goes on about the established definition.

You're redefining an entire concept coined to mean what we are talking about. Instead your clutching at straws adamantly sticking to the textboox definitions of the each word. That's just childish and have to place in any adult conversation.

Just in the last week you've redefined the following to fit your unsupported narrative here on HN and called everything else objectively false and refused to even discuss the other definition:

* Institutional/System racism, ignoring ~50 years of history (for the term itself, the practice itself is obviously much earlier).

* Soclal Democracy, ignoring ~200 years of history

* The concept of personal property and it's distinction from private property. Ignoring ~200 years of socialist history.

You do realize that you don't have to agree with the concept to at least discuss it? Something like "Yes, if we use established definition, which I disagree with, there's systemic/institutional racism against black people in America".

Because what definition do you even think people are using when asking you if it exists? "Do you like the color blue?", "No! there's no blue color". That's just childish and will never generate any constructive discussion at all, and is for all purposes just trolling or at least sabotage - answering a question that contains an established concept/definition with an entirely new one that only you know about.

>>Come on. You've cherry-picked a single vague line from the preamble of that article because it's so general that it also fits your narrow definition. The rest of the article goes on about the established definition.

The preamble is the most important section of an article. You don't "cherry pick" the most important part of an article.

My definition is exactly what the terms "institutional" and "racism" would imply when put together.

>>You're redefining an entire concept coined to mean what we are talking about.

It was not coined to mean whatever it is you're talking about (which none of you have actually specified by the way, because you know how absurd it sounds when spelled out).

>>* The concept of personal property and it's distinction from private property. Ignoring ~200 years of socialist history.

The concept of personal property is a socialist one. It's not used outside of left-wing circles who believe in left-wing economic quackery that is completely rejected by mainstream economics.

>>You do realize that you don't have to agree with the concept to at least discuss it? Something like "Yes, if we use established definition, which I disagree with, there's systemic/institutional racism against black people in America".

Established by who? Just as socialists don't get to establish what private property, or the terms "wage" and "slavery" when used together, mean for everyone else, racial injustice grievance activists don't get to establish what the terms "institutional" and "racism" mean when they're used together, for every one else.

Personal property is a form of private property, and demonstrates the prehistoric roots of capitalist principles.

The massive expansion of social welfare spending in the US over the last 50 years reflects the US moving drastically toward the social democratic pole of the free market - social democracy.

Workers are not "wage slaves" and their relationship with employers in no way resembles slavery.

There is no institutional racism in America, except in favor of members of allegedly disadvantaged groups, which receive explicitly favorable treatment through institutional privilege like affirmative action.

> The preamble is the most important section of an article. You don't "cherry pick" the most important part of an article.

Yikes. If this is the level that you're at, I really hope that you are trolling.

The point is that you don't have to agree with the definition, you can just recognize that it exists and that it's used. Then you can try to argue against the actual contents of it instead of the naming. So let's call "systemic/institutional racism" something of your choosing and go on about actually challenging the contents of it instead, alright? If not, this is a waste of time.

Is the massive BLM protests just a massive misunderstanding - nostalgia of former injustices rather than current ones?

>>Yikes. If this is the level that you're at, I really hope that you are trolling.

Please stop trolling. Comments like this are extremely pretentious, and qualify as trolling someone else.

>>Is the massive BLM protests just a massive misunderstanding - nostalgia of former injustices rather than current ones?

Is the massive Tea Party protests just a massive misunderstanding? How about the massive pro-Trump protests against the results of the election? How about the massive anti-lockdown protests?

You're acting like it's absurd to reject the beliefs of protestors.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com