Escaping the Echo Chamber

[elengil]

Neither 'systemic' nor 'institutionalized' are vague or emotional.

[Frelga]

Al, it's not an echo chamber, it's culture shock. You are a member of a majority ethnic and religious group in your country, and a straight male, and you don't seem to be comfortable with the idea that there is a certain amount of privilege that comes with that background. HoF is not a very diverse group, granted, but consider how different my background is from Voronwë's from Inanna's from Elengil's. If we agree on a something, it's probably not because we have never been exposed to opposing ideas.

Yov just wants everyone to be nice to each other.

[yovargas]

Neither 'systemic' nor 'institutionalized' are vague or emotional.

Ok, define institutionalized and give me examples of it.

[Frelga]

Here's what five minutes of googling pulled up. It'll get you started, and you can do your own research from here.

What institutionalized racism looks like inside our system of education

INSTITUTIONAL RACISM AND RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN THE U.S. HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

10 Signs of Institutionalized Racism

Police Shootings Reflect Structural Racism

[elengil]

Neither 'systemic' nor 'institutionalized' are vague or emotional.

Ok, define institutionalized and give me examples of it.

really? You don't know the definition of institutionalized? Or more to the point, you require a 'vague, emotional' liberal to define easily looked-up terms for you?

Look, calling things 'vague and emotional' is about as vague and emotional as you can get, because those are definitely buzz-words whose very point is to delegitimize the terms they are being employed against. No one wants to use words that are 'vague and emotional' unless those words are, in fact, the words "vague" and "emotional". But using them does not actually make the use correct, nor actually deligitimize what they are being used against.

In a different context, you probably wouldn't think twice about calling something systemic or institutionalized. You seem to be objecting to their use in this context rather than blanketly trying to insist the terms are actually vague or emotional.

Systemic is used in auditing regularly to differentiate between a one-time failure, such as a simple mistake or individual failing, vs a failure of the system itself to produce the correct result. In such a case, even if the error was done by an individual, it as done within a setting in which the error was a regular and statistically expected outcome.

Evidence - data - is what separates a individual failure from a systemic failure. No emotion or vagueness is involved whatsoever. In fact the only way to define something as a systemic problem is to show the pattern over time of the problem happening, in spite of what individual may be involved.

Same with institutionalized. It isn't even always bad, it just means something has, in essence, become systemic. They are synonyms.

To steal a positive use from the definition
https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... utionalize

… he has tried to institutionalize the bank's practices so that it can carry on when he no longer leads it.
— Bruce Shenitz

The idea is once a practice has become institutionalized - that is, it has become so ingrained in the proper operating procedures of a system that switching out an individual would make no appreciable effect - that it is self perpetuating.

This is not always bad. As the quote above shows, a necessary practice can become institutionalized to ensure a good practice is carried on.

But let's also look at the second quote

In 2005, The New York Times revealed a set of NSA surveillance programs that, though considered shocking at the time, have since been institutionalized.
— David Brown

Do something shady long enough and it will become ingrained as well. No matter what fresh new face is brought in, they will eventually fall into the same institutional systems that they are surrounded by.

I doubt you can argue these definitions are emotionally charged - they are again based on the overwhelming evidence of data which shows an outcome of a practice not due to specific individual actions but because everything that has been put in place which upholds that practice means that no one individual could directly stop it, and no one individual is responsible for perpetuating it.

So do please explain why you object to these terms being used in this context, when by definition they require data to support them and therefore are the exact opposite of 'vague' and 'emotional'.

[yovargas]

Thank you for the longer response. I want to respond to it in full can't write at this moment but I did want to ask:

To steal a positive use from the definition
https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... utionalize

"to make into an institution : give character of an institution to especially : to incorporate into a structured and often highly formalized system "
(Emphasis mine)

Do you think that "highly formalized" applies in this context?

[elengil]

Do you think that "highly formalized" applies in this context?

Yes.

[yovargas]

I realized that to fully respond to your post would require me to write huge essay expanding on my thoughts and frankly, I know that's not going to happen, so I think I will bow out.

I did, however, want to say that I read three of Frelga's links (one of them didn't work) and in none of them was there anything that would generally be called official, structured, or formal.

[elengil]

The education, health care, and justice systems are not highly formalized?

Are you maybe confusing the institution - a highly formalized thing - with the introduction and process of discrimination within the institution - systemically enacted but not necessarily formalized or blatantly stated policy?

[Frelga]

Yov, I think you are confusing institutionalized and legalized.

For example, cannabis use in Berkeley has been systemic for a long time before it became legalized.

Here's another story. Rolling Stone.

I talked to @RevDrBarber about Ralph Northam, and why we need to be talking about a lot more than Ralph Northam. The systemic racism’s the thing. My latest for @RollingStone. https://t.co/hjigGfS8CL

[Alatar]

Al, it's not an echo chamber, it's culture shock. You are a member of a majority ethnic and religious group in your country, and a straight male, and you don't seem to be comfortable with the idea that there is a certain amount of privilege that comes with that background. HoF is not a very diverse group, granted, but consider how different my background is from Voronwë's from Inanna's from Elengil's. If we agree on a something, it's probably not because we have never been exposed to opposing ideas.

Yov just wants everyone to be nice to each other.

I have no problem admitting my privilege, which is just another example of you willfully mischaracterising my position.

Just because you agree on something does not make you both right, in the same way that it does not make you wrong. I'm sure the Flat Earth Society has people from all backgrounds who have been exposed to opposing views. Are they right because they all agree with each other? HoF is an echo chamber because dissenting views have for the most part fallen silent in the avalanche of patronising comments such as yours above, where you imply that any disagreement with you is due to white privilege, or worse, outright racism and misogyny.

The reason I created this one single thread in a sea of self congratulatory "wokeness" was to challenge people to try to see the opposing view instead of dogmatically reinforcing their own. It was an abject failure.

ETA: I note that Yov is just trying to be nice, whereas I'm a member of the white cis patriarchy and probably a racist misogynist. Oh and apparently my religion is suspect also. I think someone else needs to check their bias.

[Primula Baggins]

Looking back over this thread, I can see more than one place where I've fallen into the trap of reading into other people's posts what I expect to see there. Maybe we all have to some extent. It's easy when feelings run high, even among friends.

I plan to take a breath and stand back for a bit. I know I can do better.

[Frelga]

Al, the only person calling you names is you.

[elengil]

The reason I created this one single thread in a sea of self congratulatory "wokeness" was to challenge people to try to see the opposing view instead of dogmatically reinforcing their own. It was an abject failure.

How are opposing views to be seen if not expressed? I see different viewpoints being expressed and discussed in this thread. How else is this to be accomplished if not through the dialogue created by people holding those differing views? And in what way is in an abject failure if this dialogue is happening?

[Alatar]

Al, the only person calling you names is you.

There’s a pattern Frelga.

[Alatar]

The reason I created this one single thread in a sea of self congratulatory "wokeness" was to challenge people to try to see the opposing view instead of dogmatically reinforcing their own. It was an abject failure.

How are opposing views to be seen if not expressed? I see different viewpoints being expressed and discussed in this thread. How else is this to be accomplished if not through the dialogue created by people holding those differing views? And in what way is in an abject failure if this dialogue is happening?

The point of this particular thread is not to express your own views but rather to play devils advocate and challenge your own perceptions by articulating a view other than your own. In that way it has been a failure as this or any topic would discussed in exactly the same way in any other thread on this board.

[elengil]

The point of this particular thread is not to express your own views but rather to play devils advocate and challenge your own perceptions by articulating a view other than your own. In that way it has been a failure as this or any topic would discussed in exactly the same way in any other thread on this board.

Forgive me if that was not at all apparent from the introductory post.

[River]

..and the post I thought I was replying to disappeared. nm

[Dave_LF]

Hm; I thought I was quick enough that no one would notice, but I guess we've got fast readers here. I suppose that means I need to put it back.

On that note, when a person who hasn't taken Diversity 101, but who is familiar with the English language hears the term "institutional racism," they're going to think of something like the Nazi party or Jim Crow laws where racism was part of the official, written policy. That is what the word "institution" implies, after all. And this person will rightly claim that no such thing exists in the modern US. But that's not what people mean where they talk about institutional racism; instead, they're thinking of something more akin to what we call "company culture"--i.e. the set of habits and expectations and define what a place is like without actually being written down anywhere or officially enforced. And because they define the terms differently, they'll talk past each other and argue endlessly about two totally different things.

Addendum: "Institutional racism" can also mean policies that are not overtly racist on the surface, but do disproportionate harm to members of some race or another, either on purpose (rare) or though ignorance or simply not thinking things through.

[elengil]

Hm; I thought I was quick enough that no one would notice,

Nope! You were too slow, puddy tat!