2 ms·
> which by your argument would be racist. You seem to have misunderstood my argument; maybe I wasn’t really clear in that part. I think a policy that helps lot
by tomp 8y ago
> which by your argument would be racist.
You seem to have misunderstood my argument; maybe I wasn’t really clear in that part. I think a policy that helps lots of poor black people, some poor white people, and doesn’t help Obama’s daughters (because they don’t need help), is a good, fair, and most importantly effective policy. A policy that doesn’t help poor white people is racist. A policy that helps Obama’s daughters is ineffective (and I don’t want my tax money to go to that cause).
- fzeroracer 8y agoA policy that affects one group of people more than others by racial lines sounds like a racist policy, don't you think? Which was my entire point. You're in effect, arguing for a policy that is racist by your own prior argument. We have affirmative action policies and the like because we admit that some groups of people are disadvantaged due to a multitude of circumstances and we attempt to do things in such a way as to ensure that they can mitigate those circumstances.
- DuskStar 8y agoI think you're conflating the two different definitions of racism here. In one, something is racist if it has different impacts on people of different races - not due to their race, but due to some correlated variable. In another definition of racism, something is racist if it uses race as a determining factor in behavior or treatment. Providing aid to low-income families is racist by the first definition, but not by the second. But (damn near) everything is racist by the first definition.