Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder
Because it neither states nor implies wrongdoing on my part unless you assume that all actions that cause harm are culpable, which they are not.
Which, in fact, is a really important distinction to be able to make to be able to think about what "institutional" or "structural" racism is. It's not the sum of a collection of malicious decisions. There doesn't need to be a specific bad actor to get a bad outcome.
|
If I say, "Adder, you've indirectly or perhaps inadvertently caused harm to Ty," how's that not an accusation? I'm still accusing you of causing the harm. You get to retort.
I'm not saying one gets to respond to a charge that there's institutional oppression by arguing lack of
mens rea. And by switching the target of the accusation from an individual or group of individuals to a "system," you don't get away from the essential argument. Even if someone says society at large - all of govt, systems, and institutions are together causing certain groups to be disadvantaged - any person hearing that argument has the right to respond by questioning if the groups themselves bear some level, however small, of responsibility for the disadvantages.
You might say that rebuttal does nothing to help heal the situation, potentially even enflames things, and you'd possibly be right. But on pure logical, rational bases, any time you say something is causing harm to something else, examination of whether there's any self-inflicted harm is required.
This is offered as pure logic. As I noted before, I'm sympathetic to avoiding these conversations for social reasons. But that's not logic.
