I don’t need proof. You just gave it. The problem is you don’t like the terms. “Systemic Racism” isn’t prescriptive. It’s descriptive. I am not a conspiracy theorist. I don’t believe that some 180 year old illuminati named Whitey McLyncherson is sitting in a tower somewhere manipulating the legal system to kill black people or make sure women are paid less money. That’s ridiculous.

We are describing the system in which this has occurred. A system that is implicitly racist. Direction, intention, dynamics… those are all irrelevant.

As I pointed out, you eve said it: ” It ebbs and flows based on the will and ideas of the people.” and “I have stated many times that the manipulation of the system, through media, propaganda, etc” “The fact that people, ill informed or not, can get behind BLM, or feminism, etc. is proof that the system is fluid.”

YES… that is all true. You are describing what is called a cultural system. #BlackLivesMatter can ONLY exist in a system wherein it is a response to something. The very existence of a cultural movement that has more than like 5 people prospering is evidence of a sociological system.

You’re literally writing the proof for me.

The problem is you suffer from what rhetoric calls egocentric thinking. You take the evidence of which you are speaking and try to retrofit it your predefined beliefs. Specifically you are saying “hey here’s all this stuff that you call systemic racism, but I don’t like that term and therefore systemic racism doesn’t exist.”


No one is saying (well, let me hamper that… some people are… but I’m not. And AJ Ortega, Tim Bruhn, Laura Valentine or Rod Roscoe certainly aren’t) that the system does not allow for anything but black people to be persecuted. That would be ridiculous. What we are saying is that a system EXISTS wherein a black people are disproportionately treated in racist ways. Intention and causality are irrelevant! This always comes up. It isn’t part of our argument, but since you believe it isn’t true, you offer it as proof. It doesn’t matter. YOU are describing the system. You just don’t like the name.

I will say that I do agree with you on a key point here. Simplification DOES limit the ability to predict or explain cultural reactions. That’s why I go out of my way to have these discussions. But you’re doing that right now. You’re rejecting the evidence that you are presenting (unknowingly) and disparaging the entire field (actually several field: sociology, rhetoric and cultural studies) because you disagree with the term being used because of a misunderstanding of the specifics of the definition.