3 ms·
It's weird that people act like this is the only solution to correct past injustice, too, when there's a much simpler racially-neutral method. You just help al
by Natsu 6y ago
It's weird that people act like this is the only solution to correct past injustice, too, when there's a much simpler racially-neutral method. You just help all disadvantaged persons equally. Inasmuch as any particular identifiable group is thereby disadvantaged, they're disproportionately helped by this neutral method. If only people of race X were poor, then helping all poor people would be isomorphic to helping all people of race X. But it will always remain balanced to the degree that any group is disadvantaged.
So if we just make things biased in favor of the poor, this will be able to self-correct automatically.
I don't get why that isn't seen as the best solution.
- Avicebron 6y agoYeah it's a weird contortion of the mind that a vast majority of people are willing to make. Like the issue is poverty and opportunity, for every race, but no, suddenly there is this disproportionate rush to be "anti-racist" by being racist, it's so obviously orwellian 2+2 = 5 i'm surprised it hasn't been made the headline of every major media
- amznthrowaway5 6y agoMost people aren't smart enough to think these types of things through, instead of just following the crowd. So cheaters get to put in policies that high income people from non-white races can game while continuing to oppress poor people from all races in the name of "social justice".
- malandrew 6y agohttps://www.thedailybeast.com/antiracism-our-flawed-new-religion https://www.thedailybeast.com/antiracism-our-flawed-new-reli...
- john_moscow 6y agoBecause people who promote these policies have their own vested interest. The formula is always the same: 1. You pick a minority that suffers from something, compared to the majority. The minorities usually feel intimidated by the majority, and the viral/network effects within them are much stronger. Once you get them to back you, this directly translates to political capital. 2. You find a way to offer help to them, that is seen as beneficial at the first glance, but in the long run will not solve the problem. This entrenches them, making them dependent on your help. 3. You find a party that will pay for your policy. It needs to be a relatively large group with much weaker network effects. They also need to be wealthier than the minority, so you will be seen as a nuisance, rather than a real threat. 4. You use the "*ist" label to quickly shut up people criticizing your policy and pointing out its long-term inefficiency. Because most of the critics won't have a vested interest, they won't fight you till their political death. Instead, they will quickly retreat in fear of social media outrage against them. Rinse and repeat. The minority continues to suffer, the silent majority is scared to criticize anything, the society becomes more and more polarized and divided.