Smasharoo wrote:
In case you're still confused as to exactly what I meant when I said "Institutionalized racism", I'll refer to the wiki page for the term. Specifically, this part:
How about this part, you know: the first sentence on the page defining the term?
The term institutionalization is widely used in social theory to denote the process of making something (for example a concept, a social role, particular values and norms, or modes of behaviour) become embedded within an organization, social system, or society as an established custom or norm within that system.
Um... That is how I was using the term Smash (in a broader sense). Or did the half dozen times I said I was talking about making something "an official part of the structure" kinda blow past your head?
It's the same thing. The key point here is that it's "official". It's part of the policy, law, etc. If you walk up to the leaders of the organization and ask them "what's your policy on X", they'll tell you. That's what makes it "insitutionalized".
Do you see how when you walk up to the head of an AA program and ask him that question, he'll tell you that the policy is to provide benefits to different people based on their ethnicity? And do you also see how that's different then the answer you'll get when you walk up to the boss(es) of the various real estate offices involved in the Fair Housing Alliance's "tests". Every single one of those responses will say something to the effect that it is *not* their policy to discriminate on the basis of ethnicity.
That's the difference. It's a biggie. You can't end instances of racism within businesses by creating an institution who's operating principles are racist. That's going in the wrong direction.
Quote:
Sad, I know. Your mistake in using the wrong word, because you have zero knowledge of ... <blah blah blah>...
I used the correct word Smash. Nexa used the incorrect word and linked an incorrect definition to counter my statement.
I specifically and very clearly stated that Affirmative Action programs result in "institutionalizing racism". My specific point was that by doing that we are creating government programs with official operating principles that are racially discriminatory in nature. That's what *I* was talking about. The fact that Nexa confused it with "institutional racism" is not my fault. It's an understandable mistake, given that the idea was named such specifically to make it easy to confuse the two.
But you continuing to argue such an indefensible position *after* this has all been clarified is just silly...
Quote:
I was specifically talking about Afirmative Action in this context Nexa. I was saying that by passing Afirmative Action laws, we are "institutionalizing" racism, by creating official government programs that use racism methodologies to determine who recieves their benefits.
Well in the future, you might consider using language that actually expresses the idea you're trying to get across instead of saying "Black people blow" and then when challenged explaining "Obviously I meant they blow out candles on birthday cakes."
The term "institutionalized racism" matches exactly what I was saying Smash. What part of this is confusing? I used exactly the correct term to describe Affirmative Action. Unless you're trying to say that AA programs do *not* "make racism an embedded part of the programs as an established custom or norm within those programs" (paraphrasing the definition).
Or are you just incapable of basic logical thought? Cause from where I sit, the definition and my use of the term was correct.
As bad as your thought process is above, this bit is even more laughable though:
Quote:
Can we please acknowledge that those are two different things and that it's wrong to try to use one to cancel the other? You fight racism by fighting racism, not creating more. That would seem to be an obvious statement.
Of course it's not wrong, no more that it's wrong fine companies who overcharge their customers. The companies aren't doing something legal by charging money, but fighting that by charging them money makes perfect sense. I realize logic doesn't enter into this for you, and that it's more related to one of two things.
Wrong analogy. Because fining a company for overcharging their customers would be equivalent to fining companies who engage in racially dicriminatory practices. See how that goes together (and interestingly enough is *exactly* what I said we should be doing)? Creating a government funded program to provide benefits designed to counter that racial discrimination, would be equivalent to creating a program designed to give money to people who are traditionally/statistically overcharged by private businesses in order to counter the overcharging.
Isn't that the most ridiculous way to address the problem? No sane person would argue that we should prevent overcharging by businesses by handing out money from a government fund to people who might statistically be the most likely to be victims of overcharging. Sorry. That's nuts. It's nuts in that situation. And it's just as nuts when applied to racial discrimination.
It's the wrong solution. Heck. It's not actually a solution at all.