I'm ignoring everything else you posted because it's unrelated to the question.
It's actually relevant. It shows that your simplistic use of statistics is flawed.
Still dodging the question, huh? Sad. You have like ten posts there, all at once, just dodging all the evidence.
You're clearly on the border of trolling here, whatever you claim about "voting left".
If I pointed out how black people had low life expectancy during slavery, would you demand a multi-variable analysis to remove genetic factors and lifestyle choices before admitting that slavery was the problem? I mean, to be consistent, you'd have to, right?
Toque.
God this is frustrating, but I guess that is the reason for this thread. Let me help you out.
Steveo admits that racism exists, as do all sane people, but he has a problem with your simplistic use of statistics. He understands black Americans overall have poorer health outcomes but logically and reasonably he also understands that there could be many variables that contribute to this reality, and to simplistically chalk it up to racism is unreasonable. Having worked in healthcare I personally can think of lots of alternate variables off the top of my head that does not involve racism. He is NOT denying racism exists, but is challenging you to prove it is the SOLE reason blacks have poorer outcomes. I'm sure if you pressed him, he would probably admit that racism in the past and in the present probably does play a role, but probably not to the level you believe.
Also, these labels are ridiculous. Someone disagreeing with you does not make them a troll. Flinging personal insults seems to be the de-facto response for a lot of people in the off-topics. People can disagree with you for valid reasons, and at any time posters here could be wrong, including myself. That should be the reason people debate, to come to truth. Right?
As a moderator, I would think you would have a greater responsibility to not throw the labels around. I don't understand what Steveo has done to warrant the threat of being called a troll, by a moderator nonetheless.
I think a lot of it may be due to what people mean when they are talking about institutional racism or sexism. Steveo has flatly denied that institutional racism exists, but if it does it is racist against whites.
Oh yeah, I think a huge problem is that people aren't on the same page as far the agreed-upon definitions of what they are discussing, as these terms have certainly changed quite a bit in my lifetime. Sometimes people are talking about wildly divergent points when they think they are talking about the same thing.
I'll let Steveo define what he believes as far as your second point.
I have never denied that sexism or racism exists. I've never denied that institutional racism existed in the past but today it is becoming more and more a thing of the past and I don't believe that it exists systemically today.
I've gone over this already though and the people who disagree with me cannot provide any logical coherent argument against my point.
I'll state what a stated earlier but in some more detail:-
Do you believe that statistics are the basis for your proof in the patriarchy & institutional racism ? If so then you must believe in a matriarchy as men commit suicide much more significantly than woman and men die on average younger than women.
These points follow on from each other utilising the logic of the people who are all in a state over the proof that patriarchy & institutional racism exist.
You can't have the argument both ways if you are being logical.
Of course like myself you can state that society is complex and it's not as simple as western society being a matriarchy or a patriarchy. That is all I am stating and there is nothing at all wrong with believing that.
This then leads onto the whole point of this thread. There are various techniques that leftists who are way more further to the left than most western political parties utilise that do not appear to be techniques that people of good moral character utilise and these techniques like violence in my opinion are the sort of stuff that shouldn't be tolerated. This can be encapsulated in the idea of vilifying anyone who disagrees with their simplistic and blunt social theories.
Well I'm glad you posted this, because of the way you posted, I didn't really understand your beliefs since you didn't actually state them.
Your logic needs work. When anyone uses statistics, is is to support a framework or theory.
For example you state: "If so then you must believe in a matriarchy as men commit suicide much more significantly than woman and men die on average younger than women." What is the mechanism that a matriarchy has been created in the United States, especially given the relatively recent ability for women to vote or other basic rights and priviledges? Now that you've explained why there is this matriarchy, what is the mechanism that it is causing men, such as by oppression to kill themselves, or to die younger? Are there other explanations that make more sense? Is there other information that supports this view, or do other facts undermine this theory, such as such as men committing rape and other violent crimes at a higher rate, or that men across the world regardless of societal structure have a shorter life span?
For example, here are facts. Females have less assets than males. Here in the US, and certainly much more so in other cultures that say an anthropologist would define as a patriarchy. There using this as a unifying theory, this explanation provides many mechanisms to explain this difference. Everything from in the past not them having legal rights to vote or to have assets or bank accounts, to differences in inheritances, educational attainment, to job access. Any one "fact" or piece of evidence needs to be weighed both how it fits in the framework or theory you have going, as well as alternative explanations. A theory works when it a) explains a large amount of the evidence, b) there is not a compelling alternative explanation, and c) it can make predictions. There is also the law of parsimony. Because "science", one would rather have a theory that explains say 80% of findings, than a dozen isolated fragmentary theories that explains 85%.
Please explain to me your theory of matriarchy and its mechanisms.
Then others can compare your theory, to the frame work of patriarchy. And what mechanisms it uses to explain these pieces of information. Then you can actually see, which one has the preponderance of evidence. I don't think you actually want to do that.
Same thing for your claims of "extreme left" and hence racism against whites, versus claims of long-standing and entrenched racism against minorities in US society.
Same thing for your claim of calling people on the left "violent" (I guess compared to people on the extreme right?).
Go ahead.