[comte7092]

I took it as a given that we could agree that there was an explicit system of racial hierarchy in the United States.

Call that social justice dogma if you want, but I’d consider it an objective fact.

Edit: because it seems to be unclear. The word “was” was in reference to the past. It’s an objective fact that there _was_ an explicit system of racial hierarchy in the United States.

[asabjorn]

> I took it as a given that we could agree that there was an explicit system of racial hierarchy in the United States.

When you think it's explicit instead of implicit you are in a minority even amongst social justice adherents. Social justice started focusing on "implicit" bias and racism because the instances of explicit racism in the 2000s were not numerous enough to support its activist objective of tearing down the system and replacing it.

The whole concept of "systemic oppression" is based around this realization, where social justice argue that capitalism fool people into being happy and content so that they don't oppose an implicitly oppressive system that traps them in a false reality.

> Call that social justice dogma if you want, but I’d consider it an objective fact.

The examples in my previous message show that it's neither descriptive nor factual.

Social justice prescribe a totalizing worldview that use an every-increasing set of politically motivated identity groups to further an activist objective. The objective is to tear down the system and the promise is a utopia once everyone agrees with the utopic vision.

[comte7092]

You’re arguing against a straw man, or at best an extreme minority viewpoint.

Given the history of the United States, wherein there existed both legal and extralegal forms of racial discrimination, the primary assertion is that while the obvious forms of racial discrimination have been abolished, there continue be forms of systematic racial discrimination. These people assert that this is a bad thing and it should be corrected. This is not about bringing about a utopia, but about righting a wrong.

None of this is “totalizing”. Indeed, even in the past, during slavery and Jim Crow, you had examples of successful black people and other POC (Web Debois, Fredrick Douglass). The argument is simply that POC face barriers that white people simply don’t face, not that those barriers are impossible to overcome.

[asabjorn]

Social justice is totalizing as an ideology, I was not referring to past racial discrimination.

In social justice activism "racism" is redefined to mean "inequitable outcomes". So of cause with this change of definition you can say the "group" experience racism when you really just mean that one group does better than another. DEI is the prescribed social justice solution, ignoring how the equity doctrine has destroyed every society it touched.

If you use the colloqial definition of racism then affirmative action, diversity quotas, DEI preferential hiring&promotion are all widespread policies that discriminate against white people based upon their race. DEI programs also use negative racial profiling and stereotyping. The claim that white people do not experience racism is therefore objectively wrong.

So social justice is arguing for explicit racist policies to fix "implicit racism", which really means "equitable outcomes"

[comte7092]

I have to reiterate that you are arguing against a straw man.

The notion that DEI advocates have redefined racism to mean “inequitable outcomes” is a framing that has been constructed by conservatives and IDW types, but it is _not_ what DEI is about.

DEI is about what _explains_ the inequitable outcomes.

Given the history of western societies and the United States in particular, it is reasonable to assert that there should be a burden of proof to show that there are no longer racial privileges rather than the converse. Especially when the same hierarchy is displayed when looking at patterns of racial inequalities today. Further, there is significant scholarship that draws direct lines between things like redlining, housing convenants, and sentencing disparities and those same racial inequalities.

There are really only two classes of descriptions that can explain such disparities.

1. All people are inherently equally capable regardless of racial categorization, the disparities we observe at due to barriers placed in front of disadvantaged groups.

Or

2. Some groups are more capable of others, either due to biological or cultural factors.

2 has played out throughout the history of European colonization in different forms, both as a “scientific” practice and through cultural chauvinism. Both are general regarded as white supremacy, because that’s a fairly appropriate label.

One place I do agree with you however is here: “The claim that white people don’t experience racism is objectively wrong”

The social justice side actually agrees with you and has just started an unhelpful fight over semantics. Whether you want to call is “racism” or “prejudice” it’s not like there is anything special about white people that makes it impossible to discrimination against them. That does differ, though, from structural level discrimination.

[asabjorn]

> The notion that DEI advocates have redefined racism to mean “inequitable outcomes” is a framing that has been constructed by conservatives and IDW types, but it is _not_ what DEI is about.

The second term of the social justice prescribed D(iversity)E(quity)I(nclusion) solution, equity, literally means redistribution of outcomes.

> The social justice side actually agrees with you and has just started an unhelpful fight over semantics. Whether you want to call is “racism” or “prejudice” it’s not like there is anything special about white people that makes it impossible to discrimination against them. That does differ, though, from structural level discrimination.

How are DEI programs, affirmative action and diversity quotas for hiring&promotion not structural level discrimination? These are policies and laws pushed by the government and corporations.

> The notion that DEI advocates have redefined racism to mean “inequitable outcomes” is a framing that has been constructed by conservatives and IDW types, but it is _not_ what DEI is about.

> DEI is about what _explains_ the inequitable outcomes.

There are more than 3 possible explanations. The most likely one is that your categories, race, are not well fitted to what you are trying to explain. For instance, Nigerians do incredibly well and are considered black and most of them came here not rich.

You are also comparing over timeframes that don't make sense. The america of today is not even comprised of the same populations, and the people that lived these injustices died a looong time ago. As recent as in 1950 89.3% were white with most of the remainder black. Today 60% white, 18.5% hispanic, 12.5% black, 5.8% Asian, 2.3% multirace, and 0.9% other.

Most wealth and status is also currently not gained through inheritance. Most get high status through education and wealth through work. This shows how bad it is that social justice activists push racial discrimination where status and wealth is currently gained through individual merit.

[comte7092]

> You are comparing over timeframes that don't make sense. The america of today is not even comprised of the same populations, and the people that lived these injustices died a looong time ago.

The children that integrated schools in the south are still very much alive, and aren’t even that old [1].

“Hispanic” wasn’t even a category in the census until 1970 (they were here, they just weren’t counted). [2] While there has been significant Asian and Latin American immigration in the interim, the stats you cite aren’t comparable due to differences in collection criteria.

> How are DEI programs, affirmative action and diversity quotas for hiring&promotion not structural level discrimination? These are policies and laws pushed by the government and corporations.

The government isn’t allowed to have racial quotas [3]. But I would cede that you make an important point here, that the proposed remedy mirrors the problem that is being brought up. I am not here to argue the virtues of such programs. There is a difference between identifying that a problem exists and agreeing with a proposed solution. My understanding is that you don’t agree that there is a problem, and that is the extent of my concern.

> Most wealth and status is also currently not gained through inheritance. Most get high status through education and wealth through work. This shows how bad it is that social justice activists push racial discrimination where status and wealth is currently gained.

This is a red herring, no one is arguing against education and work. Conservatives just want people to focus on those things in lieu of addressing racial discrimination. Also, treating inheritance as though it’s insignificant is a bit odd… 35 to 45 percent[4] may not be a majority, but it’s hugely significant.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Bridges?wprov=sfti1

[2] https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2010/03/03/census-...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_Univ._of_Cal._v...

[4] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2015/01... "Inheritance Matters. An estimated 35 to 45 percent of wealth is inherited rather than self-made"