Difference between revisions of "Systemic Racism (Best Arguments)"

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "If you can look at both sides best arguments (and counter-arguments), not cherry picking their worst or exaggerating their points, we can usually deconstruct which is appealin...")
 
Line 10: Line 10:
  
 
<noinclude>
 
<noinclude>
 
+
==Videos==
 +
{{T0|
 
{{Video|YrHIQIO_bdQ|Viral act.tv video with the best arguments the left has to offer}}
 
{{Video|YrHIQIO_bdQ|Viral act.tv video with the best arguments the left has to offer}}
 +
}}
 +
{{T0|
 
{{Video|UJXUuT6R1Lc|Charlie Kirk's Deconstruction that shows all their premises are frauds, and they ignore better explanations for each.}}
 
{{Video|UJXUuT6R1Lc|Charlie Kirk's Deconstruction that shows all their premises are frauds, and they ignore better explanations for each.}}
 
+
}}
  
 
{{ref}}
 
{{ref}}

Revision as of 09:44, 15 June 2020

If you can look at both sides best arguments (and counter-arguments), not cherry picking their worst or exaggerating their points, we can usually deconstruct which is appealing to reason/facts, and which to emotions/disinformation. Fortunately, the highly funded left has good, polished videos like thier best arguments on systemic (Institutional) racism [1] and Charlie Kirk did a pretty good deconstruction of the flaws in their reasoning[2], and it's pretty easy for the non-gullible to see through the fundamental flaws of their argument. Their points are:

  • Schools: are often funded by property taxes, so a rich school gets more money than poor schools. Semi-true, but outcomes aren't based on district money, and many black/poorer areas get more money per student (we over-compensate) and outcomes still don't improve (we've tried). The white/black divide doesn't follow incomes or school funding, and whites and asians in poorer schools often outperform blacks and latinos in richer ones, but blacks in poor schools that try, can outperform whites in good or worse neighborhoods.
  • Wealth Disparity and Red-lining: they blame wealth disparity, and blame that on red-lining (who could buy property). The problem is that ended (legally) in the 1960's, it wasn't based on race (as they claim) but geo's/income, and Asians, Whites other immigrants and in those areas were able to overcome those barriers, why were blacks the only ones who couldn't? We inverted it in the 70's and since with special loans/benefits to minorities or opportunity zones, and didn't get significantly different outcomes for blacks.
  • Colleges: they imply colleges could exclude blacks through "legal segregation", but this is false. There were black colleges since forever, and desegregation in colleges started in the 1940's with Brown vs. Education outlawing it in 954. Since then we've had the opposite, special incentives and lowering of standards if you're black, while whites and Asians are given special penalties in college admissions and are still over-represented.
  • Implicit bias: this is the idea that everyone is racist and they just don't know it. But there's never been any evidence that this is significant. It turns out that in sales and life, your charm, dress, speech, looks, and things unrelated to race, are far more significant to our success than any implicit biases that hurt all of us (not just blacks). So until they can show evidence that this matters, it's just a distraction.
  • Resume filtering and black unemployment: there was a disputed and unrepeated Harvard Study that claimed to show that Black sounding names get fewer callbacks. But callbacks aren't conversions to hires, most academic studies can't be reproduced and are later debunked (and this one hasn't been). And right now the institutional racism actually favors the minorities. Black unemployment is higher -- but not if you normalize for income, education and degree type. And when you look at incomes of equally educated/experiences blacks or whites, there's no difference: blowing this hypothesis out of the water.
  • Solutions: Pretend that Slavery and Jim Crow laws are responsible for black outcomes. In other words, ignore any responsibility of the individual, family or culture might have in black under-performance or criminality. Blacks are the only race that can't overcome their color -- which is completely disproven by black immigrants or black children raised in white or asian homes, which all outperform the black average. They want you also to ignore that public school failures have been part of the problem, as well as single parent families in the black community, welfare, gangs, and other things that hold people back far more than the problems they want you to focus on.

Better explanations for each of these problems are culture, family values, dual parent homes, gangs and discipline. So their argument is a fallacy and the problems are not primarily racism.


Videos

GeekPirate.small.png

📚 References
  1. Act.tv System Racism Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrHIQIO_bdQ
  2. Charlie Kirk's Deconstruction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJXUuT6R1Lc

Institutional Racism
There's this fallacy invented and propagated by the far left (and part of Black Conspiracy Theology), meant to undermine America, called "Systemic Racism" (aka Institutional Racism): the idea that racism in ingrained into the culture and legal or corporate policies.

While it is true that Democrat party was founded on Andrew Jackson and his Indian extermination campaigns, and Democrats created a lot of institutional racism with their KKK, Jim Crow laws, Woodrow Wilson, or in the 30's with FDR's New Deal, Social Security, Wagner Act (which excluded as many blacks as possible). Republicans have been trying to wipe it out since before the Civil War, and including the Republican civil rights acts of 1957, 1960 and 1964, the Fair Housing Act of 1968, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972. For my entire lifetime, there's pretty much nowhere for institutional racism to legally hide: every attempt is rooted out and eliminated. There is the exception of Democrats false flag of "affirmative action" (anti-majority racism). But with the exception of anti-white/asian policies, there are no policies (official or unofficial) that allow cops to assault civilians based on the color of their skin.

Despite all recent evidence is that police abuse is actually less common against blacks (relative to murder rates), every time there happens to be a police (or civilian) abuse problem against someone who is black, the old leftist tropes are trotted out in order to divide us for political gain -- while similar assaults against Whites, Latinos or Asians are ignored. Once you get past the surface Fake victims like Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, Michael Brown,. Finally, when an obvious abuse of power video came out (George Floyd) the nation was ready to burn, and the DNC and their operatives were there, flinging matches. The rioters, protestors, DNC operatives and their media all propagated the same lies (1) that this was an institutional problem (not individual) (2) that the officer wouldn't have equally abused a White, Asian, or Latino that was resisting arrest, in the exact same way (3) that justice was already being served against the perpetrator (Officer Derek Chauvin), without any marches, riots or looting necessary in the first place. Americans are united in that we all oppose abuse of power of any individual (Black or White), where the Democrats succeed in dividing us is that many don't believe the lie that this problem is systemically ingrained in our legal code, and that the solution is supporting violent radicals (and rioters). The reason these events are newsworthy is because of how rare they are.