Because if people are partial to those of their kind, then if you have like a company, you will tend to hire people of your kind. Then, people of your kind will then end up being good at said thing since they have experience in said thing. Then, kids of said people that work for that company will be more interested and have an upper hand in that job/career, much like kids who grew up with a father who played professional baseball for example. Institutional racism doesn't actually require actual racism.When you talk about people having an anxiety-based adverse reaction to difference, you are explaining a theory for why people might be racist. I have no idea how you think that people somehow get from fearing difference to institutional racism completely bypassing racism. Actually, I do very much have an idea how, it's just not going to be constructive for me to say it.
Yeah. Perhaps you've missed the replies to this from me and Silvanus: it doesn't matter.
Silvanus and I are against racism and institutional racism, especially in organisations with the sorts of authority that the police can wield. Far right policemen are incredibly obviously likely to increase racism and institutional racism in the police. It does not matter a jot who started institutional racism: it's completely irrelevant.
None of you have shown the far-right are increasing institutional racism in these places. Sure, the few far-right in such places are probably being racist to other employees on singular incidents here and there.
Outlined how institutional racism happens up above.They didn't create the Metropolitan Police, and thus we can't say they're prominent within the Metropolitan Police? That's what you're going with?
Not really interested in your catastrophising opinions on the measure. It wasn't going to leave the area without law enforcement, as you seemed to be implying; it was essentially just a reform of the police. And it didn't even pass. So 'defund the police' is not a rational reason to avoid the Democratic Party.
Edit: to be clear, there are dozens of legitimate reasons to avoid the Democratic Party. None of them include an excess of progressivism.
Uh-huh. Yet the justices have employed rationale just as flimsy, or more flimsy still, for their own decisions on other cases. It doesn't depend on the strongest reading of the law-- it depends on their political leaning.
Whether defund the police or other crime policies by the democrats, they are causing an increase in crime. The police there were already understaffed and you think the current police were gonna stay if defund the police actually passed?
Doesn't change the fact the liberal judges' decision made less sense than the conservative judges' decision.
But according to the left's ideas, everyone is racist so why would the far-right (a tiny minority) be responsible for institutional racism?The far-right is conservative and conservatism breeds racism. Saying the far-right didn't create institutional racism is like... yeah no, the far-right as it is today didn't, because the far-right of today is a response to leftist ideals that have gained ground over the decades, like the civil rights act and reproductive rights. Back then the far-right didn't cause racism because back then far-right was the default.
Also, funny how Roe v. Wade "making no sense" benefited millions of people and harmed virtually no one. But hey "it made no sense", so good thing that got scrapped, huh? And so nice of the supreme court to introduce an alternative so people still have reproductive rights, and the lack of Roe v. Wade doesn't suddenly cause hundreds if not thousands (and in the future millions) of women to suffer. Right?!?
And when you know something that is overall good but is easily overturned is something you don't try to codify into much better law?