The many debates on systemic racism in America are flawed

The problem I see is that you are associating crack with the black identity - with blackness. This ideology then perpetuates racial stereotypes that black people are crack addicts, even if unintentionally.

Question: Once the gun goes off, aren’t the rules for everyone at that point, equal?

REFINED SUGAR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MORE DEATHS THAN HEROIN.

whether or not it was "intended" to "discriminate" "against" "the black community" or not, IN PRACTICE it very clearly had that effect.

whether or not it was "intended" to "discriminate" "against" "the black community" or not, IN PRACTICE it very clearly had that effect.

Should we also assume that when a law benefits one racial group over others that, whether the benefit was intentional or not, the law is racist? Or at least functionally indistinguishable from systemic racism?

whether or not it was "intended" to "discriminate" "against" "the black community" or not, IN PRACTICE it very clearly had that effect.

So, FUNCTIONALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE from "systemic racism".

There is no reason to use the word "racist" which strongly implies some level of "intention" (QUALIA).

Should laws that are intended to benefit one racial group over others also be considered racist then?

My problem with this line of reasoning is that it requires one to create racial identities that apply to everyone in the group. Crack becomes associated with blackness, and cocaine with whiteness.

Both factors are violations of the system by the organizer, acting, not within the system, but outside the system, on an individually chosen basis. Individual, not systemic discrimination.

Laws intended to benefit one group over another I would call racist. Laws intended to level out the playing field by targeting minorities who have been historically marginalized… I would not.

• "Laws intended to benefit [white people] over [black people] I would call racist.
  
• "Laws intended to benefit [black people] over [white people] I would [not] call racist."

What created that was reality, not my line of reasoning. The laws then followed.

I understand the distinction you are making.

• So when Ronald Greene was beat to death by six Louisiana State troopers on May 10, 2019 that was not SYSTEMIC RACISM because no law allowed those troopers to beat an unarmed man to death as punishment for resisting arrest.
  
• And when those troopers lied on their arrest reports and lied to Greene's widow saying that Greene had died in an auto accident, that was not SYSTEMIC RACISM because no law allowed those troopers to lie and cover up their murder of Greene.
  
• And when those troopers turned off their body cameras or else lied about having any body camera footage of the murder that was not SYSTEMIC RACISM because the law clearly states that those troopers must have their body cameras running at all times.
  
• And when the County Coroner falsely attributed Greene's death to car accident and made no report of the many deep lacerations and bruises and taser prongs stuck in Greene's body, that was not SYSTEMIC RACISM because the law clearly requires the County Coroner to make accurate statements during an autopsy.
  
• And when Troop F commanders threatened internal investigators who wanted to charge the troopers that was not SYSTEMIC RACISM because by law police commanders are supposed to charge known murderers and not cover up when the murders are committed by co-workers.
  
• And when the Louisiana State Patrol refused to release any body camera footage or discuss Greene's death for two years that was not SYSTEMIC RACISM because  state officials are not allowed by law to knowingly cover up internal investigations or conceal evidence in  a murder.
  
• And when the Governor of Louisiana backed the LSP's refusal to release body camera footage or discuss Greene's death because investigation were still active two years out that was not SYSTEM RACISM because Governor's are not permitted by law  to knowingly conceal evidence of a murder.
  
• And when the LSP decided to scapegoat one officer and that officer then died in a car accident a few hours later that was not SYSTEMIC RACISM because state officials are not allowed by law to scapegoat one man for a murder done by six men.
  
• And when the LSP slapped a different officer on the wrist and refused to charge the rest of the murderers with anything, in spite of the recommendations of internal investigators and in spite of the active cover up, that was not SYSTEMIC RACISM because police officers are required by law to charge people with murder when detectives have determined that a murder has been committed.
  
• And when evidence emerges that Troop F has a long history of accusations of racially motivated violence against black motorists around Monroe, LA and a long history of cover-ups and most of Troop F command resigns to avoid any backlash, that is not SYSTEMIC RACISM because the law does not allow for racially motivated violence against motorists and the law requires the State to prosecute those officials who cover up such incidents.
  

So, while any reasonable person might conclude that Troop F, the Louisiana State Patrol and the highest-ranking state officials all worked together as an institution to promote racist violence, created a system that covered-up racist violence and therefore forgave if not actively encouraged racist violence no person might reasonably call that system of racist violence SYSTEMIC RACISM so long as the definition of SYSTEMIC RACISM only accounts for the TEXT of current statutes and procedural policies and never accounts for the conduct of racist institutions and systems which may only  be properly seen as large interdependent hierarchies of  officially appointed individuals, independently breaking the law en masse and never as part of any inherently racist system.

I understand the distinction you are making.

...state officials all worked together as an institution to promote racist violence, created a system that covered-up racist violence

Laws intended to benefit one group over another I would call racist.

...state officials all worked together as an institution to promote racist violence, created a system that covered-up racist violence

No, that is not the distinction I am making. My argument is that all the actions of all those levels of law enforcement are Not acting as an institution; they are acting against the institutional requirements, which are the system. They are not creating anything but chaos, because the system is already defined; they all collectively ignore it. That is individual racism, even when exhibited by a large group. Individual racism can be calculated and executed, just as working within the system is.

The overwhelming majority of people don't announce the reasons for the their actions, especially if they're based upon racial animosity. For example, someone bumping into someone else in a store isn't going to announce, "I'm going to bump into you because you're black". So what then happens if that people are left to make an inference as to what has happened based on their feelings (a very error-prone process), rather than *knowing* the intent of the person. 

The catch was that no scar had been put on their face, and no medical sheet had been altered at all -- the people's perception of their false reality warped how they viewed the interactions.

But, your example varies entirely from my argument, that CURRENT statutes and procedural policies no longer have Jim Crow, or any other racially biased content, at any level of jurisdiction. They used to, but they were legislatively and procedurally banned and eliminated, by several factors, including the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and those racist laws have been, by now, completely stricken from law and policy, which I why I can challenge anyone, even you, to show me a current law or policy that has racially biased content, at all. No one has ever been able to demonstrate a single instance. So, you throw out a wish balloon by a fictitious 400M race. Sorry, your come back is flat, Keep blowing.

So to be clear, you are agreeing with me that crack being a part of the black identity is not just a logical conclusion, but it is simply reality? Or, it is true that crack is actually a part of blackness?

The "powder-cocaine" versus "crack-cocaine" sentencing disparity is only one example of this.

Fruit_Inspector: My problem with this line of reasoning is that it requires one to create racial identities that apply to everyone in the group. Crack becomes associated with blackness, and cocaine with whiteness.

Double_R: What created that was reality, not my line of reasoning.

can you identify a reasonable, logical, rational hypothesis that explains why "powder-cocaine" and "crack-cocaine" are treated differently under the law ?

That depends. Do you believe that cocaine should even be illegal? Because if you don't (as with heroin), there is no point in going down this road.

Finally, you said in post #61 that if a law discriminates against a particular race, even if it is unintentional, it is still functionally indistinguishable from systemic racism. You used this to point to crack/powder cocaine laws as an example of systemic racism, or at least a functional equivalent to it. So I am still looking for clarity about whether laws or policies that benefit one racial group over another are examples of systemic racism, or at least a functional equivalent to it.

The "powder-cocaine" versus "crack-cocaine" sentencing disparity is only one example of this.

Show me the current statute allowing that disparity. Show me the departmental policy that allows it. You cannot because it doesn't exist. It is individual choice to creep.

100-to-1 crack versus powder cocaine sentencing disparity 

For example, if a hypothetical government does something like, I don't know, something maybe perhaps like, cutting estate taxes for people with a net worth over one million, and, hypothetically now, let's say, that just happens to benefit "non-black" individuals disproportionately, could that tax cut be considered functionally indistinguishable from "systemic racism" ?

Is this what you're asking ?

If you believe that recreational use of cocaine should be legal, then I have no interest in discussing various punishments for the recreational use of cocaine.

Should we assume that laws or policies that benefit one racial group over another are examples of systemic racism, or at least a functional equivalent to it?

Again, show me any law, or official policy, not some study that alleges systemic racism. Allegations are rampant; the real deal is, so far, evasive, and it will continue to be so.

Again, show me any law, or official policy, not some study that alleges systemic racism. Allegations are rampant; the real deal is, so far, evasive, and it will continue to be so.