Institutional racism

banks, universities, and law enforcement/government

You're retarded my dude

as facile a charge as I've ever heard

From a comment on youtube regarding the issue as a rebuttal:

"There isn't significant political oppression of individuals based on identity in America. The reason is that America wasn't set up at a democracy. America was set up as a constitutionally bound, democratically elected, republic.

How well the people respect its structure determines how much oppression exists. Black people were originally not respected as people afforded the same rights under the constitution, there was significant oppression.

When and if the constitution is fully respected by the laws and people in the country, we'll have less oppression than any time in history, it's mechanistically inevitable.

Identity politics removes the freedom of the individual for an assumed benefit to an arbitrary identity, skin color, economic class, sexual orientation or identity, etc.

The power is always with the people, politics follows culture. If people want to be free and unoppressed, they will act to do so.

Unfortunately, people don't want freedom, they want advantage. It's a natural evolutionarily derived impuse, unfortunately it always back fires. Every socialist and communist regime started from the peoples desire to be better for themselves, but not better for everyone. The result is a egomaniac taking the reigns of culture to drive the people into an immoral frenzy to support oppression under the guise of freedom.

The solution is simple, always choose the path of less violence and more freedom, even when it seems unwise to do so in the short run. The premise of individual rights is simple, it stems from the assumption that every individual fully and absolutely owns themselves, and no one can have authority over them.

You can't mitigate the repugnate discrimination of freedom of association some people choose through government regulation. The power to deny people freedom of association in any regard will be usurped and corrupted. The only way is to allow people their poor form and peacefully advocate for acceptance amd love. Regulations are enforced by violence, that's discriminatory and bigoted.

"White patriarchy" evolved the ideas of the enlightenment that authored the declaration of independence and the constitution, that eliminated slavery and created the wealthiest culture and.country in the world. NOT because they were white or patriarchal, but because of the place and time where the idea evolved and flourished.

These idea of individual rights and self ownership are being corrupted, which will result in more oppression than most westerners, blessed without precedent in the history of the world, can fathom.

It's already started, we're at the tipping point of inevitability where the cultural.momentum and economic weight are sure to bring us down, resulting is suffering far worse than that the propagandists claim they wish to avoid. Western culture is eager to repeat history, I can't fathom the ignorance and cognitive dissonance that brought us to where we are, but here we are"

I mean you've actually given an example in your OP image. Banks and car companies have been caught frequently in recent years discriminating against non-whites in terms of whether to loan to them even when they have similar or identical credit scores to equivalent loan-seeking whites.
latimes.com/business/la-fi-toyota-settlement-20160202-story.html
consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-and-doj-order-ally-to-pay-80-million-to-consumers-harmed-by-discriminatory-auto-loan-pricing/
consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-takes-action-against-fifth-third-bank-for-auto-lending-discrimination-and-illegal-credit-card-practices/
bbc.com/news/business-33527783
nytimes.com/2012/07/13/business/wells-fargo-to-settle-mortgage-discrimination-charges.html?_r=1
justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-reaches-335-million-settlement-resolve-allegations-lending-discrimination
consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-and-doj-order-hudson-city-savings-bank-to-pay-27-million-to-increase-mortgage-credit-access-in-communities-illegally-redlined/
housingwire.com/articles/36175-first-tennessee-bank-reaches-19-million-settlement-over-discriminatory-lending
justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-reaches-settlement-sage-bank-resolve-allegations-mortgage-lending
housingwire.com/articles/34956-mt-bank-reaches-settlement-over-discriminatory-lending-charges
mcclatchydc.com/news/crime/article24760804.html

Attached: pure ideology.webm (640x360, 7.54M)

this makes sense, especially with regards to the science daily article.

Aside from realizing a marxist utopian dream, would the answer for an individual to avoid oppression in this system be to support it, much like what the commentor illustrated here?

That doesn't make any sense.
No. I don't know who wrote that comment, but it's the product of severe brain damage.
online-literature.com/orwell/887/

You can't be this stupid.

while I wade through the flurry of articles you just posted, does it not account to anecdotal or poor methodology? Why do you seek short articles in journalism to support your argument and believe them as fact?

Take the toyota example first: Toyota did not discriminate, the dealerships did.

This begs many questions:

-where were the dealerships. Were they in San Francisco or Alabama?
-was it the salesman or the manager marking up the interest?
-were their credit scores equal?
-what was the model of car being sold, did it carry higher interest on that model, was it last year's model?
-Was the dealership majority POC or white?

The argument lies on so many assumptions that there isn't a clear answer. What direction should be taken when the person making the charge can't point where the problem is? It devolves into a discussion about balance of power, which obviously you and your side feels morally justified in assuming.

How are we headed anywhere but violence if sweeping judgement is made about infinitely variate scenarios?

Marx was never a utopian you dropkick. Utopian socialists generally do not believe any form of class struggle or political revolution is necessary for socialism to emerge. Utopians believe that people of all classes can voluntarily adopt their plan for society if it is presented convincingly.

Ive seen your lot before. This is a typical "lel convince me" tier Reddit post from some Zig Forumsyp who comes in with politically illiterate assumptions and then proceeds to ignore evidence which is presented to him by
1. Poisoning the well
2. Rejecting any evidence presented to him, calling it "biased"
3. Asks for our solution and then tries to moralfag his way out of the argument calling us """violent/ opressive/ authoritarian"""

Have you heard of a country called "South Africa?"

Toyota incentivized their dealers' discriminatory practices. They might not have said "charge more for black people," but their complicity is indisputable.

Try to make a point when you post.

sounds more classist than racist. You seem to have jumped further than your logic supports.

bear with me I'm not from here. What I'm driving at is short of revolution to start from scratch as a means of erasing the previous structure

Though not all of what the commentor wrote was great, the main idea I think is worth considering

Whatever man. You're free to leave the thread if that's how you feel

diffusion of responsibility? Because something acts within a system its also responsible for all of its errors? I can follow your logic, but I can't follow it to whatever solutions or judgement you may have for it. Its a Japanese company for crying out loud. Am I supposed to infer that they are in bed with white supremacy across the pacific?

"Institutional" and "systemic" racism are terms used by liberal faux-radicals to pretend that their struggle is grounded in a structural understanding of society as a whole. They usually don't have anything of the sort, since to understand how racism is upheld systemically you have to understand that it is grounded in economic reality. This is impossible for them. They're too uncomfortable identifying capitalism as the problem.

They like attacking individuals for their alleged biases. They fail to address the illness itself. Biases are symptoms more than causes.

Revolution as the solution to all problems might be the anarkiddie approach, but it certainly isn't Marxist.

Good fucking god, the ideology

Yeah, but let me guess that oppression (despite the mountains of evidence we have given you) doesn't exist today? Fuck wit.

Elaborate

That's not what revolution entails in the least bit. "Starting from scratch" is nothing but reactionary idealism.

There isn't any main idea. It's incoherent rambling.

Toyota is responsible for Toyota discriminating against people, yes.
Why wouldn't they be? The Toyota board of directors isn't effected in the least bit. To the bourgeoisie, racial issues like that don't matter. They're bourgeois, not "Japanese." Racism is just a tool to extract profit, just like it has always been.

Attached: communist auto worker explains capitalism and racism.webm (480x360, 7.98M)

I think watching you make an absolute arse out of yourself will be more interesting.

Marxism doesn't solve racism etc., but it sure takes the sting out of it. I care little if someone is a racist when he has no power over me, to take away my housing and livelihood.

Uh, yeah it is.

A lot.

theintercept.com/2017/01/31/the-fbi-has-quietly-investigated-white-supremacist-infiltration-of-law-enforcement/

For the record, the homeless and poor are also consistently fucked with on an even greater scale. And some (especially small scale) cases of institutional 'racism' are actually measures taken to snub the lower classes which are mistaken for racism because you aren't supposed to talk about classism. But do black people face discrimination on account of race? Yeah, they still do. It's documented.

But Toyota paid damages. Are they still in the wrong because they had to wait for the DOJ to step in? Is the DOJ ever guilty of anything, would you consider them complicit with other arms of The Institution and Bourgeois?

I think you beat me to it

...

You couldn't be more cringey if you tried. How old are you?

So what?
"Right" or "wrong" aren't the consideration here. The issue is whether or not it is an example of institutional or systemic racism, which it demonstrably is.
They are complicit by design. The entire point of a bourgeois government is to serve the interests of the bourgeois. You can take this recent Clinton secret server business as a textbook example. It is a tool for leveraging power between the various bourgeois factions, but primarily against the working class. It isn't any more interested in dispensing "justice" than the Defense Department is in waging "defense."

Attached: for the good of the system.mp4 (1280x720, 2.92M)

To quote my favourite cult leader "not an argument"

>>>/reddit/

which is it?

Where exactly is the contradiction

Oh i see, you put all of the inconsistencies neatly into one conspiratorial box of "the bourgeoisie"

Good god, you must truly be a euphoric Titan on Reddit with your genius level intellect.

youtube.com/watch?v=X_8E3ENrKrQ

And there he goes, downplaying the evidence and out right dismissing it, just as I predicted in

Are you going to help a brainlet out and point out where you think the contradiction is or are you already at the point where you just start to answer with asshurt nonsequiturs

I agree. But too often journos and media are defended by those waving the charge of institutional racism. I can't get past the irony of institutions directing idpol justice at other working class members, as if the institution itself was the vanguard of true justice.

This is one I've thought about for a while, if certain non-whites can't get credit they blame that fact on racism. This accusation has been around for decades and when banks were lending to non-whites like crazy prior to the 08 crash there were some articles published saying that this "injustice" was starting to be overcome.

But, after the crash when it was discovered that these banks had lent billions to "POC" who had neither the ability to pay, nor the collateral to cover a failed loan this was quickly forgotten. The smart liberal writers even wrote some articles saying that the banks were racist for making loans to people who couldn't pay!

Maybe you can argue that its both at the same time, that they were racist in both instances but to me that sounds like a stretch.

I wish institutionalized racism was an actual thing and you PoC animals suffered greatly for it. But alas here we are where all of our institutions bend over backwards for you, and if a clerk doesn't smile at you that is proof of actual racism. Suck my cock, PoC animals.

Bye-bye baboons delete this post like the good little baboon you are

Yup. Post-hoc rationalizations

"decoloniazation" "Racism=Power+prejudice"

Two wrongs don't make a right?

Well you never offered any, I'll be back after reading all the articles posted above but it will take me some time. I welcome better responses than the ones you have given me.

It isn't ironic at all. The entire reason those institutions exist is to divide and direct state power at targeted portions of the working class.

Attached: identity_hd.png (2000x1154 457.22 KB, 936.24K)

i mean to say ironic at face value, not ironic when you understand what is going on beneath it

They are both at the same time. Before the turn of the millennium, the point of a loan was the generation of profit through interest. Currently, the point of the loan isn't the interest in itself. The loan itself is turned into a commodity, divided up, sold off, and profited from immediately in that way. Every major retailer now has a credit system and their own credit cards, effectively dispensing loans and then selling the debt to collection agencies. People that can't pay are specifically targeted _because_ they'll never pay off the debt, effectively paying interest forever on a product that can be endlessly resold while also generating rent for whoever owns it into perpetuity. In the case of, say, home loans, they even get the added benefit of whatever property the loan was used to buy, plus whatever value the homeowner added between taking the loan and possession of the property, and their inevitable arrears.

So long coons!

The
actually, coming back to this. This reads like theory retrofitting an event. The premise and conclusion were intact before and after it was used to analyze the event. Who specifically benefits? Besides "the bourgeoisie"

What does the Justice department gain by going after Toyota in this instance? What power is maintained and while the working class may not be aided other than the damages won, how were they taken advantage of?

Bye-bye baboons!

What the fuck are you on

You mean the responses where I gave you evidence and yet you flat out downplayed it an acted like some wimp when I didn't respond to you in a """respectful manner"""

Spare me your condescending bullshit you flop-knobbed daft-cunt

The problem with liberal social criticism is that "systematic" is a nebulous and largely meaningless word. Social justice types do not understand the difference between de facto and de jure discrimination, and that even in radical theory, this difference is significant.

Bye bye nigger apes!

Fuck we are awesome aren't we

Attached: fb5ba7d460c0fa1afba35a721e5bd831dff27e9d52811e39f79e1c179129f524.jpg (604x388, 155.46K)

So long coons,
Bye-bye baboons!

If you're not talking about Jews you're not talking about institutional racism

So this post

Was in fact you? If not, please point out which ones they were.

No boons, no coons, no nigger usa!

BLACK DOES CRACK

No. But, here's a video that might help you understand more
youtu.be/8zqSSJSQlWo

So you've offered nothing, said you had given evidence, and now are acting like a petulant child. leave my thread

Apes

I could also say the same for you

This one was one of them but again you acted like a redditor and rejected it.

Ooohhh don't smite me, Zeus
Well spooked, my property

I gave you an opportunity to reemphasize your evidence. I scrolled through the black flag posts which maybe you could have turned off at some point if you felt like being a twat. Only the first post contained evidence, the rest was a temper tantrum. Also you never addressed my responses.

Except I made no assertions

To a shit tier speech with no evidence and shit tier logic? You're not very smart, are you?
On top of that, you expect me to take you seriously after to you proved my predictions correct?
Awww, someone seems upset over the ten seconds they're not getting back. :^)

Also
You called Marx a utopian, posted a shit tier copy pasta and called evidence given to him """opinions"""". This whole thread is an assertion. Though take out the "ertion" and we've got you! :^D

I just came here to gather thoughts beyond huffpo on the matter since its incoherent in every other news outlet. You're the one who jumped on the thread, and have been assmad looking for an argument the whole time. Maybe go outside

*given to you

Son, I'm having a ball at how much of a pseud you are. You rejected evidence from multiple comrades ITT, downplayed it, and then play victim when you're called on your bullshit.
Soon as you head off back to Reddit.

got me i guess, have a nice life

Where did I do that? You can put the pitchfork down

I'd say the same to you, but that'd imply you have one.

...

Such a sad and predictable response. Try to project less

I didn't post that. Anything else, champ?

Racial ideas weren't popularized until after large scale colonizations had happened.
Is it your contention that slavery, which had existed and had been practiced by all of the colonized peoples, was somehow uniquely racist because white people did it too?

No modern economic or evidence based historical report supports this view. Almost all systems and technologies that allowed for ownership of capital exceeding, in today's terms, roughly 1000 dollars was developed in Europe. It was then exported. There were no magic beans growing in Africa. It was simply land that could be harvested with technology developed in Europe.

Your historical analysis is just repetition of brown nationalist talking points that have no basis in reality. What you espouse is fundamentally a reactionary position.

Also,
Social mobility is actually very possible. This is a simple google search away. The negative change we contend with today is that more people are being born into lower economic strata overall because the wealth is concentrating at the top. You would know this if you knew anything of what you were talking about but like most AnComs you are just an uninformed moron with a big heart.

To whomever posted this: Did you just have these at the ready, or did you google them all just now?

source for this? sounds interesting

UPBOATED my euphoric gentleman
Sure it wasn't.
Other than you're a pseud and should watch vid related so you don't make an ass out of yourself like you did ITT? Nothing much
youtu.be/Bt_kR7u6mM4

be sure to tell your overweight neckbeard buddies about your win on the chans

Now who's projecting

i like that one, haven't heard it before

It's a deep dive, but worth engaging with. To begin with we could look at the diffusion of technological advancements:
dartmouth.edu/~dcomin/files/wealth_nations.pdf
Chinese centralism is validated only for 0AD. Primarily due to being a "central" power in trade at the time, as closed off as they otherwise were. This is contrasted with Europe that was, more advanced in both 1000BC and 1500AD. This adoption of technology happens before the transcontinental slave trade, colonialism or industrialization. This however, is just looking at the transmission and adoption of technologies. N-Europe and to a greater extent Sub-Saharan Africa were much more geographically isolated than China, Western Europe or Arabia. I include an image of table 4 from the pdf.

The most fundamental work of 'who invented what' is by Charles Murray. Wikipedia has a decent overview if you don't want to attain his book: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Accomplishment
I include images of the data extrapolated from his book.

amazon.com/Contours-World-Economy-1-2030-Macro-Economic/dp/0199227209
And an image of the wealth of nations as deduced by this one.

All of these things together paint a rather clear picture. Europe has always been technologically open. There was no burst of magic beans being transported from Africa that coincides with any technological explosion or advancement. Agricultural advancements that did produce explosions of food production had nothing to do with colonialism. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Agricultural_Revolution

It is also worth noting that alongside this burst of technological development that began in the 15th and 16th century in Europe there began a decline in 'harmful' behavior. Criminals were punished harshly, i.e. killed. vrc.crim.cam.ac.uk/vrcresearch/paperdownload/manuel-eisner-historical-trends-in-violence.pdf
And the upper class was out-breeding the lower class. demographic-research.org/volumes/vol18/5/18-5.pdf
All over Europe there was basically a massive eugenic program to kill off criminals and people that did not conform to enforced societal norms. I would argue that this is a form of societal technology to advance itself.
A parallel with this can be drawn in China and Asia overall where massive wars, that dominate the entirety of Chinese history, curtailed any expression that could not coincide with the strictures of war.

Attached: Wealthofworld.png (563x402 20.67 KB, 16.84K)

Western imperialism began in earnest around 17th century.

Natives still live in official ghettos they don't have autonomy over motherfucker.

By Eminent Domain or Some Other Name: A Tribal Perspective on Taking Land
digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2526&context=tlr

Interesting data, but Murray's claim that society is declining because of secularism and nihilism is easily the stupidest thing I have read all week. He needs to stick to quantifying data, not making value judgments

I saved them from somewhere a few months back

They were forcing peasants off of their own land and then executing them when they had to steal to survive. It's the main impetus for Utopia.

Wew, lad, etc.

Where do you think all the extra land came for to produce this "revolution?" The process of enclosing the Commons forced peasants out of the countryside and into the cities, and from there out to the colonies. It wouldn't have been possible without that pressure valve. Saying it had nothing to do with colonialism, especially considering the vegetables and stock imported from the new world, or the revenue generated from overseas trade, or the improved techniques Europeans encountered in their travels, is just absurd.

The link to the second agricultural revolution goes over this quite succinctly. There was no "extra" land. They just improved yields massively by employing new technology. They kicked out native farmers to make room for what they deemed more profitable, sure. That has nothing to do with colonialism though, given these farmers were native English and Scotsmen.

Where do you fit the pull made by the industrial revolution into all of this? I would also need numbers on the people moving into colonies. I was not aware that there needed to be a pressure release. The English dealt with the Luddites without such a valve, after all. I seriously doubt your statement. I see no reason for as to why it would not have been possible.

Everything is connected by this standard. I might as well make the statement that the assassination of King Gustav III was connected to colonialism.
I didn't cite all of these specific things to get bogged down in playing vague with history. Actual things happened. Actual things were created. Actual advancements were made. Actual things were imported and exported. The Wikipedia link mentions the plough the Dutch brought from China. It was an advancement brought over by exploration. Can you name these things that in your view must have been brought over? What advancements? What revenue and how did it contribute? Where did it go? Why? From who? What improved techniques? How prevalent were they? How did they get distributed?

History isn't mystic. Stop playing around with it as if it can just bend to your whim.

Retard.
Up your asshole.
No shit, you fucking halfwit.
Then stop pull corn out of your wizard's sleeve you impenetrable moron.

all baboons in zoos

No, just you not understanding written language. How is kicking farmers out of England and Scotland colonialism? I was not under the impression we were using the word colonialism to describe anything other than western influence and gain got from non-western nations.
I trust your knowledge on assholes more than literature and history.
Then I am still waiting for you to demonstrate the connection that justifies your previous statements. I have a felling I will be left disappointed.
Projection is your strongest suit.

There are two views on this IMO

1. Leftists say that racism is used by the capitalists to divide the working class into racial groups competing with each other.

2. Rightists (Zig Forumstards and other nationalists) say capitalists (of jewish descent of course) want to turn the world into undifferentiated blob of cappuccino colored rootless humanity. That is to say, racism and other forms of prejudice get in the way profits, and a single consumer is easier to sell to, so capitalists and capitalism aren't actually racist

Both are true to an extent. 1 is what they actively try to do and 2 is a consequence of economic development that's unavoidable.