Just because an adjective is followed by a noun does not mean the definition of the adjective changes. But, lets look at some definitions if you would like..
"
Systemic Racism: In many ways “systemic racism” and “structural racism” are synonymous. If there is a difference between the terms, it can be said to exist in the fact that a structural racism analysis pays more attention to the historical, cultural and social psychological aspects of our currently racialized society."
https://assets.aspeninstitute.org/c...t/docs/rcc/RCC-Structural-Racism-Glossary.pdf
"
Structural Racism: A system in which public policies, institutional practices, cultural representations, and other norms work in various, often reinforcing ways to perpetuate racial group inequity. It identifies dimensions of our history and culture that have allowed privileges associated with “whiteness” and disadvantages associated with “color” to endure and adapt over time. Structural racism is not something that a few people or institutions choose to practice. Instead it has been a feature of the social, economic and political systems in which we all exist"
Okay, so that backs up my usage.
"Institutional racism or systemic racism describes forms of racism which are structured into political and social institutions. It occurs when organisations, institutions or governments discriminate, either deliberately or indirectly, against certain groups of people to limit their rights."
http://www.racismnoway.com.au/teaching-resources/factsheets/32.html
Yep, fits what I have been saying again. For the term Systemic racism, there needs to be a structural factor and implementation. Had you looked at this at all, you would have seen this. Instead, you try and discredit me as x or y.
If you mean to say that we can use empirical data to back up correlation then sure. Empirical data can do that, but it does not give an inherent conclusion. My graph used empirical data gathered by "empirical methods" to build the table. Empirical data is a much better thing to build ideas and assumptions from, but it does not inherently draw conclusions.
Oh, you are right, I know nothing of science.
But, this again is a deflection. A poll can attempt to be scientific and still not be scientific. A paper can attempt to be quality and still fail at its goal. This is why peer review is important. While those peers might have many of the same assumptions and bias, it gives a chance to have a different view at the data. I have no doubt that Trump supporters are filled with racists in their ranks. I would even dare to say that in my opinion there are more racists supporting Trump than Clinton. That does not mean that Trump supporters are picking Trump for racist reasons.
All of this is a distraction from my post that I started talking to you about though. I would bet that this was your intent. Bring up as much crap as you can so as to distract from you original post. A person questioned if we had systemic aka institutional racism like we once had, and your reply to that. There is a reason you simply post links and do little to no work beyond that. Most people will see a link, read the title and move on. You appear to have backed up your position when in reality you have not as exampled by your recent attempt at systemic vs systematic.
Facebook
Twitter