Aight, I gotta go

You should join the town halls my guy

yeah I've been thinking about it

I missed the one toady, but maybe next time

peace, have a good one

@squid No. You’ve moved the goalposts completely. “Systemic racism” is NOT 1 or 2% of the variance caused by racism. That could be any old schmuck in charge of a hiring process somewhere. That isn’t systemic racism.

<@!735217061323866203> that's not how you would like to use to phrase"systemic racism"

Yes, carry into the fight davesp1903#4535

can we agree it is racism of some kind?

I really don't care about what word we use to call it

If any schmuck being a racist in his hiring policies anywhere is now “systemic racism” - than the term has lost all meaning. Systemic racism cannot be “any racism, anywhere”. That’s insane. That’s not what the word means, and you know that. This is why I accused you of moving the goalposts, quite frankly.

To say that “unless 100% of the bias is explained by something else” that “that’s the only way this isn’t evidence of systemic racism” is just false.

once again, I don't really want to caught up arguing about the langue of it

the reason I would use the word "systemic" is because it is system wide, ie. it doesn't seem to be confined to any locality

but it might be more accurate to use another term, that we can both agree on

would it then potentially be evidence of some form of racism?

Again, if its 1 or 2% of the variance, that isn’t “system wide”. That could be any idiot anywhere. I’ll agree with you that some asshole somewhere isn’t hiring black people. I deny that such a thing qualifies as systemic racism, “system-wide” racism, or anything of the sort. I’m sure that someone somewhere got fired for being female last year, and so, some % of last year’s layoffs is explained by sexism. That isn’t “systemic sexism” or “system wide-sexism”. Sure, I’ll agree that you could probably explain some of the variance in that study via racism. But now the goal-posts have moved from “this study shows system-wide, systemic racism” to “there’s probably some racism tangled up in here, somewhere” - and we need to point out the fact that that’s where we are at this point in the discussion.

buddy, you're getting too caught up in the language of the situation. I don't care what we call it. The biases evidenced by the study (however big or little) exists out their in the world in a demonstrable and measurable capacity regardless of how we refer to them. Language is arbitrary, we can call things whatever we want. Perhaps 1 or 2% isn't enough for you to call something "systemic." Ok cool. Is the level of bias actually less than 2%? Even if it is less than 2%, is that not still a problem we can talk about even if in your book it doesn't qualify for the title of "systemic"? At the end of the day, I'm a lot more interested in discussing the issues than debating over how to refer to the issues. The goal posts have not moved, we just didn't agree on are terms yet.

yo I've actually gtg now too. Feel free to still respond though, I might check tomorrow

Oh no no no. No you don’t. This isn’t about labels - this is about the *the actual thing* the label points to. Instances of racism and systemic racism aren’t the same - that’s why we were arguing about whether there is systemic racism, when we all agree that there exists some racism somewhere. Because we all know that we are talking about two distinct *concepts*. YOU adduced that study specifically as evidence for “systemic racism”. The entire subsequent argument revolved around that point. Now that you’ve realized there’s all sorts of confounding variables in there, you are trying to cheekily change the thing you were trying to establish from “system wide racism” to “some racism tangled up in there*, and then accuse ME of being overly concerned with language. Poppycock. We were talking about whether or not their is system wide racism - call it Shlagenflarm if you’d like. That’s the thing we are arguing about. I’m telling you that 1-2% of the variance doesn’t qualify as that thing that you very clearly claimed it did. This is an argument about *concepts* not labels.

This is analogous to the difference between “some racist cop shot some black person” and “cops are racist across the US and are more likely to shoot black people.” Those are different claims - *substantively* different claims. One is a claim about an observation, or a few observations, and the other is a claim about a population statistic. You made a claim about a population statistic - that’s what *systemic racism* is, and you know that. Now you are conflating it with the observational claim and accusing me of arguing semantics. This isn’t semantics - these are wildly distinct concepts.

LOL

GET EM!

A few racist cities in Alabama and Louisiana could make up that 1-2%. - and every other employer in the US could still be color blind. The concept of system wide racism would not apply in this case, and that’s why your claim here: *the only way the results of the study do not imply some level of systemic racism, is if the results are explained 100% by something else. This is fact* - is utter codswallop.

Codswallop

?

BAHAHA DAVE I LOVE YOU

@James B and I are reading these and laughing hysterically together.

I started this conversation, but Dave finished it

I didn’t get an audience🥺

sorry, @Delta . <@!735217061323866203> is just really fucking funny

Fair

@Delta I was reading it haha

I try to be softer I guess?

Dave goes whole hog

I wish I was that way. I aspire to Dave’s savagery levels

Dave is an inspiration to us all.

Also @squid don’t take this personally. The war of ideas is just vicious in general, but not maliciously so.

Indeed @squid nothing personal whatsoever, but this is the *war* of ideas....not the gentle, flirtatious pillow-fight of ideas, so...yanno.

I kinda want to start a website called that now just to see what happens

lol