PC Principal V: What The Fuck Am I Reading

[Gredival]

Congrats on the big gotcha moment that I just said Civil Rights Act of 1964 instead of Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968.

[guartz]

I'm gonna recommend a book to you called The New Jim Crow.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

I've actually read that.

complete drivel.

[guartz]

Congrats on the big gotcha moment that I just said Civil Rights Act of 1964 instead of Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968.

I was just having a bit of fun, I know what you meant. But srsly. Systemic. *citation pls - serious request.

[Zealot]

I've actually read that.

complete drivel.

Hahahahaha

Incorrect.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Zealot]

But by all means dismiss a chronicle of 50 years worth of jurisprudence and the consequences thereof for reasons I can't fathom and honestly just stopped caring about.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Gredival]

I was just having a bit of fun, I know what you meant. But srsly. Systemic.

Your argument is all discrimination is a collection of separate individual discrete acts of discrimination and that unless there is a codified policy of discrimination then it is not "systemic" or "institutional."

My question is how is it not "systemic" or inherent in national institutions when you have massive discrepancies nationwide in how the police treat whites versus blacks, crystalized most apparently in the gross disparity seen in the number of police related deaths between whites and blacks? Or when there is a different level of accountability applied to those police when it is a white versus black victim? Or when the media portrays the incidents differently? Or how about the disparities in the justice system?

And, to reemphasize Archi's point from the other page, is it not systemic when socioeconomic factors that largely predetermine your life outcomes are overwhelmingly influenced by the lingering legacy of actual legal discrimination?

At what point does a collection of individual acts become so ubiquitous that it can be considered an inherent condition of the system?

*citation pls - serious request.

The original Supreme Court case that recognized disparate impact claims is Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971).

Disparate impact theory is the idea that discrimination need not inhere in overt acts. Some people do call it "unintentional discrimination" like you say but it's more so the idea that if there is smoke, there is fire.

For example, if there is statistically significant wage differences between workers of two different races, or if management and executives are overwhelmingly and uniformly white male, etc. all of that indicates that there is "systemic" discrimination in play regardless of any particular lack of discrete acts of discrimination or discriminatory policies. (Of course this applies to religion, sex, gender, etc. and not just race.)

Your argument is that the lack of any on-the-books discriminatory policy means there's no systemic discrimination. If that were true, disparate impact claims would not exist.

While originating in Title VII, we've seen the idea of disparate impact claims made in other arenas. For example the racial compositions of juries has come up a lot. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 (1965), Foster v. Chatman, 578 U.S. ___ (2016). The arguments here are that juries that lack racial representation are an effective denial of an accused's right to a trial of peers and a denial of equal protection. In these decisions the court uses similar analysis; prosecutors don't have to be found to have animus against the defendant or jurors, but if you send up an all white jury to convict a black man, then discrimination has occurred. That is at least one context in which I think injustice is being carried out in an "institutional" level.

[Day]

Spicy https://twitter.com/TheOnion/status/1049313525250871296

[Yabby]

Spicy https://twitter.com/TheOnion/status/1049313525250871296

Look at the first two comments, and think to myself... these are the types of people that put their pronouns in their bio..... and i was correct.

[Day]

Pump all those replies straight into my veins

[archibaldcrane]

I thought that article was older than 2016.

[dasva]

Pump all those replies straight into my veins

low effort post tweet

[Dimmauk]

Spicy https://twitter.com/TheOnion/status/1049313525250871296

The only thing that bothers me about the title is the grammar

[guartz]

Your argument is all discrimination is a collection of separate individual discrete acts of discrimination and that unless there is a codified policy of discrimination then it is not "systemic" or "institutional."

My question is how is it not "systemic" or inherent in national institutions when you have massive discrepancies nationwide in how the police treat whites versus blacks, crystalized most apparently in the gross disparity seen in the number of police related deaths between whites and blacks? Or when there is a different level of accountability applied to those police when it is a white versus black victim? Or when the media portrays the incidents differently? Or how about the disparities in the justice system?

And, to reemphasize Archi's point from the other page, is it not systemic when socioeconomic factors that largely predetermine your life outcomes are overwhelmingly influenced by the lingering legacy of actual legal discrimination?

At what point does a collection of individual acts become so ubiquitous that it can be considered an inherent condition of the system?



The original Supreme Court case that recognized disparate impact claims is Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971).

Disparate impact theory is the idea that discrimination need not inhere in overt acts. Some people do call it "unintentional discrimination" like you say but it's more so the idea that if there is smoke, there is fire.

For example, if there is statistically significant wage differences between workers of two different races, or if management and executives are overwhelmingly and uniformly white male, etc. all of that indicates that there is "systemic" discrimination in play regardless of any particular lack of discrete acts of discrimination or discriminatory policies. (Of course this applies to religion, sex, gender, etc. and not just race.)

Your argument is that the lack of any on-the-books discriminatory policy means there's no systemic discrimination. If that were true, disparate impact claims would not exist.

While originating in Title VII, we've seen the idea of disparate impact claims made in other arenas. For example the racial compositions of juries has come up a lot. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 (1965), Foster v. Chatman, 578 U.S. ___ (2016). The arguments here are that juries that lack racial representation are an effective denial of an accused's right to a trial of peers and a denial of equal protection. In these decisions the court uses similar analysis; prosecutors don't have to be found to have animus against the defendant or jurors, but if you send up an all white jury to convict a black man, then discrimination has occurred. That is at least one context in which I think injustice is being carried out in an "institutional" level.

See, this is a bit dishonest now. In your original "achtually" post, YOU claimed the term systemic oppression has it's origin from the Civil Rights Act. I asked for some citation and judging by how you are backpedaling on that tells me you sort of made that up. Maybe it was just an assumption you had, and you are trying to explain your reasoning - but that explanation is a bit dishonest too. I'm not disputing the way you define systemic oppression, what I'm saying is that it's not present in modern America - facts are just not there. Article II lawsuits having been declining every year, for example last year there were less then 100. Police shootings of black men? How many cases was it found that racial prejudice whether intentional or not was a causal factor? Yet in your posts you explicitly imply it. I mean what else could it be? of course it's racism. Where are the FACTS my man, not correlations. But let's follow your logic here. Did you know the overwhelming majority of victims of police violence are MEN? It's not racial bias we have at our hands, it's SEXIST one.

Societies are not static. They evolve, more quickly now then ever before.

[Gredival]

In your original "achtually" post, YOU claimed the term systemic oppression has it's origin from the Civil Rights Act. I asked for some citation and judging by how you are backpedaling on that tells me you sort of made that up. Maybe it was just an assumption you had, and you are trying to explain your reasoning - but that explanation is a bit dishonest too.

No I said there is a recognized legal distinction between individual acts of discrimination (disparate treatment) and "systemic" forms (disparate impact) and it isn't about whether or not a law is codified discrimination.

SCOTUS rulings are interpretations of law, not new laws in and of themselves. When SCOTUS recognized that there is a cause of action for disparate impact discrimination under Title VII, Title VIII, the ADA, etc. then that means standing originates from that legislation not from the SCOTUS case.

Disparate impact claims have since been used together with the equal protection clause to challenge things like racial biases in jury composition, standardized testing, criminal sentencing (the death penalty), etc. all of which are clearly forms of underlying "systemic" discrimination in which instrumentalities of the system itself are working against black persons despite the lack of any legally codified discrimination.

So where's the lie?

I'm not disputing the way you define systemic oppression, what I'm saying is that it's not present in modern America - facts are just not there. Article II lawsuits having been declining every year, for example last year there were less then 100. Police shootings of black men? How many cases was it found that racial prejudice whether intentional or not was a causal factor? Yet in your posts you explicitly imply it. I mean what else could it be? of course it's racism. Where are the FACTS my man, not correlations.

1. "Disparate impact theory is the idea that discrimination need not inhere in overt acts. Some people do call it "unintentional discrimination" like you say but it's more so the idea that if there is smoke, there is fire. "

2. Based on compiled FBI data (which is in turn skewed by voluntary reporting) Vox found that US police kill black persons at disproportionate rates. Black people accounted for 13% of the population but 31% of police victims in 2012. The Guardian reports in 2015 that racial minorities made up 37.4% of the population in the US and 46.6% of armed AND unarmed victims, but were 62.7% percent of unarmed people killed by police. https://www.vox.com/cards/police-bru...-police-racism

Minorities are more likely to be stopped by the police. Coviello, D. and Persico, N. (2013). An Economic Analysis of Black-White Disparities in NYPD’s Stop and Frisk Program.

Minorities are more likely to be convicted of a crime. Anwar, S., Bayer, P., and Hjalmarsson, R. (2012). The impact of jury race in criminal trials.

Minorities are more likely to be issued a longer prison sentence relative to observably similar whites. Rehavi, M. M. and Starr, S. B. (2014). Racial disparity in federal criminal sentences.

But let's follow your logic here. Did you know the overwhelming majority of victims of police violence are MEN? It's not racial bias we have at our hands, it's SEXIST one.

Nice strawman. Except if you look above, the statistics about how minorities are treated differently are already contextualized to different levels of policing present in communities and account different base rates for races being victims.

For example, higher crime rates in black communities (which itself is a lingering socioeconomic effect of "legally systemic" oppression) only explains at most 80% of black overrepresentation in prison according to the Sentencing Project. This means that up to 39 percent of the racially disparate rate of imprisonment is attributable to other factors. http://sentencingproject.org/doc/pub...ves_Matter.pdf

So disparity cannot be explained away with mere happenstance (and even if it could, as I said, disparate rates of crime between communities should arguably be treated as institutional racism itself). The disparities originate from different treatment comparative to whites.

[Byrthnoth]

Why are you trying to educate a troll?

People who still support the Republican agenda are not just incidentally low information. We live in a time where it is the easiest it has ever been to educate yourself. People who still parrot Republican talking points have committed to remaining ignorant of reality and most of them recognize that. I wish that there was, but there is no way to reach them.

[Yabby]

Why are you trying to educate a troll?

People who still support the Republican agenda are not just incidentally low information. We live in a time where it is the easiest it has ever been to educate yourself. People who still parrot Republican talking points have committed to remaining ignorant of reality and most of them recognize that. I wish that there was, but there is no way to reach them.

I'm not sure if it can be considered the easiest. The internet is wonderful, in that it can allow access to unlimited amounts of good information, but there is just as much, if not more, misinformation out there to make it just as hard to find the correct information. Considering a huge part of our population hasn't grown up with the internet, and thus hasn't figured out how to sort through the massive amount of trash it has, it is most likely harder for those people to educate themselves.

This, of course, includes the massive echo chambers one finds when looking for justification in one's own beliefs. You can almost always find a website or multiple ones to repeat back the information you want to hear, truth or not.

Edit: Not trolls, they know what they are doing, i'm talking about the avg 40+ year old.

[Byrthnoth]

Even people who are 40+ years old are aware that there are two very different versions of reality being presented in the media (or the lame-stream media if they please) and they choose to not figure out which version is real.

[Day]

Why are you trying to educate a troll?

People who still support the Republican agenda are not just incidentally low information. We live in a time where it is the easiest it has ever been to educate yourself. People who still parrot Republican talking points have committed to remaining ignorant of reality and most of them recognize that. I wish that there was, but there is no way to reach them.

This but ironically

[Yabby]

Even people who are 40+ years old are aware that there are two very different versions of reality being presented in the media (or the lame-stream media if they please) and they choose to not figure out which version is real.

Yes, two versions and they think the one they are looking at is the correct one. It isn't about trying to figure out which version is real, they already think they know. You can't educate someone who thinks they know everything and is constantly being told they are right. Shit, flat earther's are a fucking thing....

[Day]

what if, now hear me out, the truth is somewhere in the middle of those 2 realities being presented.