solving racism

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 9160
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: solving racism

Post by Skepdick »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 9:27 pm Why? Is it original? Funny? True? None of the 'above'.
It's at least true.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: solving racism

Post by attofishpi »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:00 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 9:27 pm Why? Is it original? Funny? True? None of the 'above'.
It's at least true.
Oooo nooo. So you are the second of the poster with the stupidest fucking comments on the entire forum.

Mmm, I need to find new idols. :mrgreen:
hoobsdk
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:43 am

Re: solving racism

Post by hoobsdk »

Well, if you are spending "too much time" interacting with actual humans - it's not showing.YoWhatsApp APK Download
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: solving racism

Post by attofishpi »

hoobsdk wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:44 am Well, if you are spending "too much time" interacting with actual humans - it's not showing.YoWhatsApp APK Download

If you are talking to me, it was part of a joke involving myself and between these two:--->
Skepdick wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 2:56 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 3:11 am What's her 'black name'? What a fucking stupid comment you just made. God I'm sick of stupid people.
Perhaps she has an 'idiot name', and her 'idiot name' is holding her back??
My comments are usually the stupidest fucking comments on the entire forum.

Until you show up.
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 789
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: solving racism

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 04, 2020 5:50 pm You can't tell people what they are allowed to think secretly. They won't listen. You can't change their secret thoughts. You can only legislate against the antisocial manifestations of the attitude.
Back in 1989 Hunter Madsen and Marshall Kirk published a book After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's. One of these men was an advertising expert and the other a psychologist. The book, which I read many parts of, outlines an entire program about how the attitude of homophobia (a word which arose in their camp I should add) could be challenged, shamed, made to seem very wrong, and that those who had this attitude could be silenced. The book's program -- how to use public relations and social manipulation to reeducate society -- as you might imagine, was seriously critiqued by the religious right and it often is referred to when 'social engineering programs' are considered.

As it turns out, and in some contradiction to what you say, you can engineer attitudes. You can make people feel bad and guilty and reprehensible for attitudes that they do have, and you can engineer situations where, to stop feeling bad, that they alter their attitude.
But this is where "systemic racism" is such a terrible idea. The people who believe it's a thing can never tell you a) where it is, in specific, or b) who is doing it. No, they say, it's just "systemic" -- out there in the air, like hydrogen molecules. You'll never locate it, you'll never solve it...it's just "out there" until we say it's not -- which we will never, never say. And everything is to blame, they say...all of society, in a chemical, total way. (Well, racism is in everybody and everything that is not THEM, they assure you.) You haven't done enough, they tell you, because "systemic racism" is still "out there." And you'll never do enough. Because you can never prove that racism has been "solved": you can't measure what you can't even find. They want you to take their word for it, though -- "systemic racism" is real and malevolent, they assure you...and if you ask them to show you, they tell you that you just haven't understood "systemic," and you're probably an evil racist yourself. (Check your privilege, whitey.)
The issue of racism only comes up when different races clash. I do understand that 'scientific racism' had its origin in another century and, from what I am told, it has been 'thoroughly debunked' as an ideology. But it is true, isn't it? that racial conflict only arises in those cultural settings where people of different racial-ethnic origin are forced to interact. In those societies that are homogenous it arises little if at all.

I have examined the issue of 'systemic racism'. That means that I entered into the thinking-system of those who define what systemic racism is. Systemic racism is an ideological armament against the dominant culture. If there were a large foreign population in, say, Japan and the struggle between one cultural and ethnic group became acute, the dominant culture of Japan would be attacked as today the dominant culture of America is now being attacked. True indeed that a good percentage of the ideology of critical race theory has Marxist origins, and Marxist used tools in their 'praxis' of disturbing and riling-up social conditions so to be able to create the chaos-circumstances that they can exploit for their social activism. But the logic is not altogether unsound: America was, until a certain point, a largely white (European) society. At a certain point this changed -- it came about through activism and as a result of the Civil Rights struggles. And now if my percentages are correct the White-European demographic somewhere around 60% and declining. So there are all sort of discussion (books published articles, studies) about what the results of this are.

And what I have noticed -- someone else might have a different view -- is that the only proper and correct attitude to have is one of acceptance or, on the other hand, open support (for this demographic shift). Any oppositional stance, in whatever form it takes, is defined as an expression of racism. White supremacy. And naturally 'systemic racism'. The people that do take a stand against demographic changes and the eventuality of the future status of whites as *minorities in their own country* are vilified extremely. So with that, and with public relations generally as well as 'social engineering', it is not hard to see that vilification actually does work in changing social attitudes.
They don't want racism "solved." They want it perpetual, eternal, and unfindable. They want it "out there" so they can allege they hate it, and virtue signal about it, and hold 'protests' that do nothing good at all, and above all, claim privileges, special status and reparations based on it...and they would sit down on a kerbstone and cry if you ever convinced them you'd "solved" racism.
Racism is 'solved' when the distinct races or ethnicities (I am unsure what the now-correct and acceptable terms are) that make up a multi-ethnic society become sufficiently blended together. If I am not mistaken that must be the *ethic* that must be practiced. If it happened that one ethnicity within the multi-ethnic society did not, for whatever reason, want to go along with that program, it would have to develop a counter-ethical proposition to validate and rationalize staying apart (again I am unsure what terms to use -- separation? exclusivity?) It would have to define a social attitude that opposed what was once called miscegenation. But if I am not mistaken that is not a possible (acceptable) attitude to have. That is to say it is immoral and unethical.

So then the program of vilifying the *dominant culture* is actually necessary if, as had been the case, the social ethics of that society were, indeed, exclusionary. And no one, except I gather those on a fringe of sorts, can articulate and disseminate any view that is not the one that is made to seem 'normal' and also 'morally right'.

So beyond any doubt the 'privileges' of the dominant culture must be attacked, must be made to seem questionable and wrong, and a new attitude forged to replace any outmoded attitude of those of that dominant culture. It is very easy indeed to go back through 'cultural productions' (movies for example) and notice, and be appalled by, attitudes that we define today as racist. (And just as an example I am thinking of Casablanca when Ingrid Bergman' character asks "Could you ask the boy at the piano to come over here?" That is just one of tens of thousands.)

Surely many many different things are going on when one critically examines the internal function and logic of Critical Race Theory, but it cannot be denied that all of those 'attitudes' existed. And if they existed once they *must* still have their traces. And according to POC they certainly do.

But in all of this one must understand, at least this seems plain to me -- that there is a larger social engineering project being undertaken and in the end it is, quite factually, to create a racially-blended society and thus to 'solve racism'. Again, any stance against this is problematic.

It is simply curious and potentially interesting to examine these things in a cold light.
But we pretty much have. The attitude might still be "out there" somewhere unlocatable, but nothing can really be done about that. We have all the laws we need to make racism eliminable in practice: we have "solved" it. It's illegal in employment, in commerce, in education, in housing, and so on in every case except for the special "anti-racist" racist privileges we're still handing out, for some reason.
This is true in many ways but certainly not in all. Nevertheless it is not the real issue at stake. The real issue at stake is creating social attitudes where race distinction of any sort is made socially unacceptable. Because again if any race or ethnicity clings to its identity the attitude of doing so would be seen, and must be seen, as unethical, unacceptable behavior. It is a curious bind: to create a 'multi-ethnic society' must necessarily involve destroying (to use a rather brusque word) the very ethnicities that it pretends to value. In fact a multi-ethnic society is an impossibility in any social long-run.

As I say when it is examined closely it is a bit of a problem.
The only total "solution" to racism is the day when people choose not to hold any private racially-discriminatory attitude. But that is just not a thing that legislation, or protest propaganda, or equity initiatives can achieve. At some point, the worst thing you can do is keep talking like "racism" is still a thing, when every possible measure against it has already been taken. Then, you're just giving publicity to the attitude. By treating it as consummately important, you're giving it a dignity it never deserved. You're presenting it as a dire enemy; but dire enemies are presumably formidable, viable and current. They are still to be reckoned with.
I would actually substantially disagree. If the State is powerful enough, and if it has control of those mechanisms of 'social engineering', it can indeed engineer all sorts of different outcomes. The evidence can be considered if one examines post-Sixties America. It happened. It took place. It is in effect.

And it is all the things you mention: legislation, protest propaganda, and equity initiatives, that can indeed remake (if that is the word) the social structure.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 15233
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: solving racism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Feb 01, 2022 2:43 am As it turns out, and in some contradiction to what you say, you can engineer attitudes. You can make people feel bad and guilty and reprehensible for attitudes that they do have, and you can engineer situations where, to stop feeling bad, that they alter their attitude.
Yes, of course you can, if you're prepared to spend time either rationally convincing them or indoctrinating them against their consciences. You can change their perspectives.

But what I was speaking of was the judicial fact: you can't legislate against a thought. You can't know what the thought-crime even is, since you can't see inside a person's head.
The issue of racism only comes up when different races clash.
I see why you say that, but I think it's no longer true.

It's just in the last two days, but I've figured out what the SJW set means when they use the word, "racism." It's not what you and I, or other normal people think. You and I probably both think "racism" means "the belief that some people are inferior or superior by dint of their 'race.'" But that's not what the Social Justice propaganda set thinks.

Remember that they think racism is systemic. That means it's not dependent on an attitude one holds in one's head, and that may or may not manifest; it's a thing you can do without even knowing you're doing it. But it's not even personal; it's systemic. That means that according to them, "racism" is "an oppressive structure built into all existing systems, institutions and authorities, that has to be deconstructed and overthrown."

So for them, you can be a "racist" merely by supporting the system of "systemic racism," by which they mean nothing other than "the existing order of things," or "the status quo." :shock:

Do you believe there is good in the existing school system, and want to improve it instead of destroy it? You're a racist! Do you support having police arrest people who steal? Racist! Do you believe in borders, in national interests, in private property, or in equal treatment of all before the law? Racist, racist, racist! Every single thing you do to save, support or encourage the existing "system," the structures and stability of existing society makes you a racist.

I other words, for SJW's and their "systemic racism," the term "racism" is just the same as "social conservative" or "social moderate." Being anything other than an extreme, Neo-Marxist radical makes you, in their terminology, a "racist."

Of course there is a basic "performative inconsistency" (to parrot Kant and Habermas) in this allegation. If "racist" means only "social conservative," or "centrist," then it stops being a hot term, a pejorative, something to insult you and put you on the defensive, and make you react by way of your bitten humanitarian conscience. So they want you to hear the old definition when they insult you; but them won't stop insulting you with it until you buy into the entire Neo-Marxist program, perform your acts of contrition to them, and fall supine and worshipping at their feet, beggging for forgiveness for your "unconscious bias" and "complicity in the structures of injustice."

But SJW's don't forgive. They wait until you kneel, then kick you in the face. Because it's not about you getting forgiveness, but about them being able to virtue-signal the depth of their own hatred against "systemic racism," and keep their pals from accusing them of exactly the same thing, just for being "white" themselves.

No, for SJW's, "racist" simply means "conservative."
I have examined the issue of 'systemic racism'. That means that I entered into the thinking-system of those who define what systemic racism is. Systemic racism is an ideological armament against the dominant culture.

Yes, this is right. So the whole culture is, in Neo-Marxist ideology, damnable. And so are all participants in it. They're all "complicit,"whether they know it or not; and the only way they'll realize it is if they get "woke."
Any oppositional stance, in whatever form it takes, is defined as an expression of racism.

Exactly right. The "sin" of Neo-Marxism is always the same: that you're not Neo-Marxist enough yourself.
They don't want racism "solved." They want it perpetual, eternal, and unfindable. They want it "out there" so they can allege they hate it, and virtue signal about it, and hold 'protests' that do nothing good at all, and above all, claim privileges, special status and reparations based on it...and they would sit down on a kerbstone and cry if you ever convinced them you'd "solved" racism.
Racism is 'solved' when the distinct races or ethnicities (I am unsure what the now-correct and acceptable terms are) that make up a multi-ethnic society become sufficiently blended together.
But that never happens, for an obvious reason: that assimilation and multiculturalism are, by definition, opposite goals. So "blended together" means, "no longer really multicultural but monocultural instead," and "distinct races or ethnicities" mean "unblended" or "multicultural." To the extent one remains "distinct," one is not "blended"; to the extent one has been "blended," one is no longer "distinct." And that's just definitional.
If I am not mistaken that must be the *ethic* that must be practiced. If it happened that one ethnicity within the multi-ethnic society did not, for whatever reason, want to go along with that program, it would have to develop a counter-ethical proposition to validate and rationalize staying apart (again I am unsure what terms to use -- separation? exclusivity?) It would have to define a social attitude that opposed what was once called miscegenation. But if I am not mistaken that is not a possible (acceptable) attitude to have. That is to say it is immoral and unethical.

But here's the problem: if you're raised in a Western, post-Humanist context, you believe two contradictory things. First, you believe that having such an attitude as you describe is "unethical"; but second, you believe that cultural distinctiveness is sacred.

So what happens when you have an anti-humanist-ethic-believing culture? Is it still sacred? Should it be protected? Or is it an immoral culture, and its people should be "re-educated"?
Surely many many different things are going on when one critically examines the internal function and logic of Critical Race Theory, but it cannot be denied that all of those 'attitudes' existed. And if they existed once they *must* still have their traces. And according to POC they certainly do.

The difficulty is this: you're using "racism" to describe a personal attitude. They're using it to describe a system. In a person, there may be no "traces" left of racism, because maybe the person has reformed his attitude, or maybe he was never racist in the first place. But in a "system" there is always the chance to "deconstruct" again, to "critque," locate "traces" and scream "racism" again.
But in all of this one must understand, at least this seems plain to me -- that there is a larger social engineering project being undertaken and in the end it is, quite factually, to create a racially-blended society and thus to 'solve racism'.
No, actually; that's not the end goal.

The very last thing the SJW set wants is the end of racism. They do not want a "racially-blended" society. What they want it an angry, alienated society, with factions hating each other and regarding each other with perpetual suspicion.

Now, I know that seems a lunatic goal to you and to me. But Neo-Marxist don't think normally. They think that the way utopia arrives is automatically, by "forces of history" on the back of bloody revolution. So they need as many bloody revolutionaries as they can whip up. And they need to destroy every existing "racist" structure of society, and indeed, the whole existing social order in order for the "triumph of the woketarait" to come.

The chief preservers of racism today, those fighting hardest against the MLK vision of equality and of people being judged solely by the "content of their characters, not the colour of their skin" are the Wokies. They want anger, they want rage, they want destruction -- they want revolution.

But they are utterly incompetent to build anything at all afterward. They have almost no non-negative vision of social good, and no skills to build the new society they imagine will spring like a rose from the dunghill if only they create enough angry, alienated rebels and succeed in destroying all the "systemic" stuff. In short, they want to level society to the ground.
But we pretty much have. The attitude might still be "out there" somewhere unlocatable, but nothing can really be done about that. We have all the laws we need to make racism eliminable in practice: we have "solved" it. It's illegal in employment, in commerce, in education, in housing, and so on in every case except for the special "anti-racist" racist privileges we're still handing out, for some reason.
This is true in many ways but certainly not in all.

What are you thinking of, in specific?
The only total "solution" to racism is the day when people choose not to hold any private racially-discriminatory attitude. But that is just not a thing that legislation, or protest propaganda, or equity initiatives can achieve. At some point, the worst thing you can do is keep talking like "racism" is still a thing, when every possible measure against it has already been taken. Then, you're just giving publicity to the attitude.
That's exactly where the SJW's are. And that's why Morgan Freeman said the best way to fight racism is to "stop talking about it."

I don't think he means there's no racism left: it's just that it's past time that it simply became a relic of the past, something that no longer can be meaningfully talked about today. And the tipping point is when equality of opportunity is achieved; equality of outcome is not an indicator of a lack of equality of opporunity, because people "take" their opportunties differently. Thus, the only way to arrive at equality of outcome is to end freedom, achievement and choice once and for all, and to banish quality from all consideration.
By treating it as consummately important, you're giving it a dignity it never deserved. You're presenting it as a dire enemy; but dire enemies are presumably formidable, viable and current. They are still to be reckoned with.
Exactly so. That's what they want.

Having "racism" to hate gives their agenda relevance and imparts to them a sense of their own moral superiority. They won't give that up easily...or at all.
I would actually substantially disagree. If the State is powerful enough, and if it has control of those mechanisms of 'social engineering', it can indeed engineer all sorts of different outcomes.
The word for that is "totalitarianism," though.
Skepdick
Posts: 9160
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: solving racism

Post by Skepdick »

attofishpi wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 1:29 pm Oooo nooo. So you are the second of the poster with the stupidest fucking comments on the entire forum.

Mmm, I need to find new idols. :mrgreen:
If you are idolising me then you might be a contender for 2nd place.

But the gold medalist remains the same.
Skepdick
Posts: 9160
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: solving racism

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Feb 01, 2022 3:28 pm Remember that they think racism is systemic. That means it's not dependent on an attitude one holds in one's head, and that may or may not manifest; it's a thing you can do without even knowing you're doing it. But it's not even personal; it's systemic.
What systemic means in the language of Systems Theory is equivalent to what original sin means in the language of Christianity.

It means it's inherent not intentional. Reflex not choice.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Feb 01, 2022 3:28 pm That means that according to them, "racism" is "an oppressive structure built into all existing systems, institutions and authorities, that has to be deconstructed and overthrown."
Exactly like original sin is an oppressive structure built into all existing humans, and therefore existing systems, institutions and authorities built by humans. Sin has to be deconstructed and overthrown.

Your doublespeak is either demonstration of incredible deceit; or incredible lack of self-awareness.
Last edited by Skepdick on Thu Feb 03, 2022 9:37 am, edited 7 times in total.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: solving racism

Post by attofishpi »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Feb 03, 2022 9:17 am
attofishpi wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 1:29 pm Oooo nooo. So you are the second of the poster with the stupidest fucking comments on the entire forum.

Mmm, I need to find new idols. :mrgreen:
If you are idolising me then you might be a contender for 2nd place.

But the gold medalist remains the same.
8)
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 15233
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: solving racism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Feb 03, 2022 9:21 am
That means that according to them, "racism" is "an oppressive structure built into all existing systems, institutions and authorities, that has to be deconstructed and overthrown."
Exactly like original sin is an oppressive structure...
Au contraire: nothing like it.

The Bible never describes sin as a "structure" or "system." It's always two things: a personal, volitional "falling short" of the moral glory of God, or an innate propensity to do that, a "sin nature" that is in all human beings.

So the "'systemic" thing is entirely and invention of the Left. Understandable, really, since they see themselves as incapable of sin, and don't want to deal with questions of human imperfectability. That would ruin utopia, of course.

So they have to blame everything that's wrong with the world on some "system" or "structure" or "institution," (as incoherent as that is to do, since they also insist all these things are human constructs, and so have to be products of some human characteristic -- but coherence never seems to bother them when they form their ideas).

The Bible says you own responsibility for what you do. It's never "systemic."
Last edited by Immanuel Can on Thu Feb 03, 2022 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 5325
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: solving racism

Post by Sculptor »

Advocate wrote: Tue Nov 03, 2020 6:41 pm There are three reasons you might believe being racist is the correct world-view.

a) You trust that racist people around you to have your best interest in mind.
b) You believe even if racism is bad, there is some other reason to be racist that is more important.
c) Your own experience shows you that racism is necessary.

Each of these can be addressed in a certain epistemological way.

There are two basic types of racism; negative and positive.


Negative racism holds that other races than your own are inferior, or in some way problematic.
Poistive racism holds a position that your own race is more important to you than other races, and that you ought to promote the interests of your race.

I am here to tell you that these distinct types are EXACTLY the same thing.
And that until we stop categorising people by race, racism will persist to the long term detriment of human kind.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 15233
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: solving racism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Advocate wrote: Tue Nov 03, 2020 6:41 pm There are three reasons you might believe being racist is the correct world-view.

a) You trust that racist people around you to have your best interest in mind.
b) You believe even if racism is bad, there is some other reason to be racist that is more important.
c) Your own experience shows you that racism is necessary.

Each of these can be addressed in a certain epistemological way.
To reconstruct this problem, we have to ask a basic question, I now realize:

Is "racism"...

1) an attitude held by some people specifically, but not held by others? (classical liberal or MLK definition of "racism") or

2) a systemic feature built into institutions and structures, in which people are mere pawns, and may not personally hold any "racist" attitudes at all, but are still "racist" by way of supporting that institution or structure? (SJW - "systemic" explanation of what "racism" is)?


Which is what we are assuming is the real description of "racism"?

I think that up to this point, bouncing between the two possible definitions has caused us some confusion. Some people are talking the one way, and some are assuming the other.

Thoughts?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4724
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: solving racism

Post by RCSaunders »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Feb 03, 2022 4:49 pm There are two basic types of racism; negative and positive.[/b]

Negative racism holds that other races than your own are inferior, or in some way problematic.
Poistive racism holds a position that your own race is more important to you than other races, and that you ought to promote the interests of your race.

I am here to tell you that these distinct types are EXACTLY the same thing.
And that until we stop categorising people by race, racism will persist to the long term detriment of human kind.
I think that is the first correct thing about racism I've seen on this entire thread. Very well and succinctly stated.

I'd only add any evaluation of anyone, positive or negative, based on any classification or categorization determined by genetics or culture beyond one's control (any ethnic or genetic attribute one does not choose like sex, country of birth, or economic background) is the same kind of irrational prejudice as racism.

If one must judge others, (almost always a mistake), only judgements based on an individual's actual observable overt actions (not claims, associations, or reputation) are valid. Everything else is prejudice or psychologizing.
Skepdick
Posts: 9160
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: solving racism

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Feb 03, 2022 3:59 pm Au contraire: nothing like it.

The Bible never describes sin as a "structure" or "system."
Not in those words, no - but in the exact same denotation.

Romans 3:10. And you are using the phrase "innate propensity". So how different is it really?
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Feb 03, 2022 3:59 pm It's always two things: a personal, volitional "falling short" of the moral glory of God, or an innate propensity to do that, a "sin nature" that is in all human beings.
And that's precisely what Systemic problems are - inherent issues. Innate propensities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_problem
A systemic problem is a problem which is a consequence of issues inherent in the overall system
Your "innate propensity" towards favouring people who are more like you and disfavouring people who are less like you is the building block of in-group/out-group psychology.

And all implicit bias experiments performed demonstrate that we all have this "innate propensity" in the way that we hesitate with people with different skin tone to our own.

We fall way short of the moral glory of God in loving others like we love ourselves.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Feb 03, 2022 3:59 pm So the "'systemic" thing is entirely and invention of the Left.
The language/grammar comes from systems theory, not from "The Left", but the concept dates as far back as Christianity.

Ahhh. You confused Leftie. You can't even recognise your own ideology.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 15233
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: solving racism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Feb 03, 2022 9:29 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Feb 03, 2022 3:59 pm Au contraire: nothing like it.

The Bible never describes sin as a "structure" or "system."
Not in those words, no - but in the exact same denotation.
Nope, never anything like.

Check it out.

Romans 3:10. And you are using the phrase "innate propensity". So how different is it really?[/quote]
Very. Point to the "systemic" element in that verse. It's not there.

"Systemic" means more than simply "everybody." It means, "derived from or pertaining to a system." A "system" is an impersonal, institutional or social structure.

Regular racism is personal, not "systemic." A man is a racist not merely for living within a "racist system," but only if he personally and consciously embraces racism as an ideology and practices it himself. If he doe snot, he's not a "racist" by any classical defintion, no matter if he happens to live in an area where racist attitudes are routine.

Sin's like that -- everybody has it, but everybody personally embraces it, too. And sin is never spoken of Biblically as being a "systemic" feature; it's always with the implication of personal responsibility, not institutional "complicity."
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Feb 03, 2022 3:59 pm It's always two things: a personal, volitional "falling short" of the moral glory of God, or an innate propensity to do that, a "sin nature" that is in all human beings.
And that's precisely what Systemic problems are - inherent issues. Innate propensities.
Oh, I see what the problem is: you don't understand how the SJW use of "systemic" is different.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_problem
A systemic problem is a problem which is a consequence of issues inherent in the overall system
Yes, but for SJW's, the racism IS the "system." The individuals are mere pawns, products of the "system" itself.
We fall way short of the moral glory of God in loving others like we love ourselves.
That's for sure.
Post Reply