The many debates on systemic racism in America are flawed

pretty much but i do get why he would make that distinction

in that sense it is stereotyping but again doesn't take away from the argument since its a fact black people are more likely to do drugs.

black people (not all) are usually or more likely to be born in high poverty areas more likely to be surrounded by crime, more likely to have a dad in prison more likely to drop out more likely to do powdered drugs.

You made the point that a policy which is supposedly equally applied to all races, but intentionally created to disproportionately affect one particular race, is systemic racism - even if the letter of the law does not show it. I said that such an assertion requires stereotyping. "Hippies like weed." Whether it is true or not, that is a stereotype of hippies. To assume that a tax on weed was intentionally made to the detriment of hippies requires you to believe that stereotype, correct?

A law need mention no specific ethnicity in order to target that ethnicity. Traditionally legal precedents and business practices have systematically oppressed many groups and continue to do so but even if all such policies ended right now the long term effects of such laws would remain. That is what makes it systematic. 

black people (not all) are usually or more likely to be born in high poverty areas more likely to be surrounded by crime, more likely to have a dad in prison more likely to drop out more likely to do powdered drugs.

Is that inevitable because of systemic racism?

Some "stereotypes" are based on real-world-data.

Some "stereotypes" are not based on real-world-data.

Black people are poorer than white people.

Black people are less intelligent than white people.

Lower the standards and give more money to the poor unintelligent black people.

The whole "problem" is solved.

That is racism - both in its view of black people and its discrimination of white people.

So it is inevitable that black people are less intelligent,

To phrase it differently, you have just said that it is inevitable that black people will be inferior to white people in almost every aspect of life. 

super secret invisible racism, sometimes referred to as systemic racism.

When did I ever see this? I said it is inevitable that more of an oppressed demographic will be socially disadvantaged than a demographic that is not. I would appreciate it if you address only the arguments I actually make. 

No I have only said that societies systematic oppression has the net consequence of limiting opportunities and promoting social ills. A poor person is not inferior to a rich person. 

It is neither a secret nor particularly difficult to see. Culturally the United states has been oppressive to people of color.

The point is not that any official government body states overtly that people of color should be oppressed but that official policy has tended in the past and continues to be skewed towards maintaining a status quo in which statistically people of color suffer disproportionately. 

Yes. It is inevitable that oppressed people will be oppressed in the ways they are oppressed. Is this even a question?

Using that same logic, policies that lower standards for black people

No I have only said that societies systematic oppression has the net consequence of limiting opportunities and promoting social ills. A poor person is not inferior to a rich person. 

You inserted yourself into an argument that already had a context,

The argument is essentially that because the U.S. engaged in slavery in the distant past,

Using that same logic, policies that lower standards for black people

Please be slightly more specific.

You inserted yourself into an argument that already had a context,

That's how a public forum works.

The argument is essentially that because the U.S. engaged in slavery in the distant past,

Nope, that is NOT "the argument".

Using that same logic, policies that lower standards for black people

Please be slightly more specific.

Affirmative Action is a great example.

The argument is essentially that because the U.S. engaged in slavery in the distant past,

Nope, that is NOT "the argument".

It is a generalized form of the argument. Though it not generalized by much.

I do not generally support "Affirmative Action" policies.

I do not generally support "Affirmative Action" policies.

Why not?

I believe any policy that has an EXPLICIT and specific reference to skin-tone, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion and or creed should be deleted.