4 ms·

You really don’t see how elevating a single race over others might be an issue?

pcbro141 6y ago
I think it's acceptable to elevate Black people to be on the same level as other races in America as opposed to disadvantaged. I actually think Black America is owed a lot more than what Google is doing here after centuries of legalized racism and being shut out of building wealth, but that's the US government that owes them.
- RobertRoberts 6y ago
  Can you clarify what "elevating" looks like from your perspective? And considering how many immigrants there starting out with literally nothing (one example) how we should pick one race to help but not all terribly disadvantaged people?
  - pcbro141 6y ago
    America knew exactly how to target Black people with legalized racism during slavery, Jim Crow, redlining, etc. All we have to do now is the exact same targeting, but in a positive direction to correct the centuries of economic warfare and legalized racism that was targeted against Black America. None of this means that no other disadvantaged groups don't have a case either.
    - radegast 6y ago
      "Targeting in a positive direction." My sides.
- bjt2n3904 6y ago
  "Other races" don't get special labels on their businesses. Putting tags like "Women Owned" de-legitimizes the owner. It makes women owned business seem stigmatized, as if it's unusual or especially notable. It strips them of their dignity.
  - pcbro141 6y ago
    And white men don't get affirmative action. And how come there's no White History Month? (sarcasm)
    - albacur 6y ago
      And native peoples don’t get labels on their businesses, despite centuries of mistreatment. Growth of Hispanic-owned businesses has been slow In the US, and it’s likely caused by socioeconomic conditions. Should these groups get a special label? Who gets to decide which groups get a label?
      - pcbro141 6y ago
        I'm strongly in favor of remedies for the harm caused to Native Americans as well, I was happy to see half of Oklahoma declared a reservation legally recently. They are definitely also a group who was unfairly targeted and deserves specific remedy too.
        dforrestwilson 6y ago
        So to answer the original question, you think that you should be the one to decide?
    - radegast 6y ago
      Your (sarcasm) explains everything what's wrong with this whole situation. The BLM movement doesn't want equality; they already got that. They want superiority.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- lucaspm98 6y ago
  The only way they can be on the same level is if they are not labeled based on the race of the owner. Emphasizing black ownership or any other attribute can only either add advantage over other groups or be a disadvantage. There is no good outcome possible other than it doesn’t affect anything, at which point what’s the point?

I think it's acceptable to elevate Black people to be on the same level as other races in America as opposed to disadvantaged. I actually think Black America is owed a lot more than what Google is doing here after centuries of legalized racism and being shut out of building wealth, but that's the US government that owes them.

RobertRoberts 6y ago
Can you clarify what "elevating" looks like from your perspective? And considering how many immigrants there starting out with literally nothing (one example) how we should pick one race to help but not all terribly disadvantaged people?
- pcbro141 6y ago
  America knew exactly how to target Black people with legalized racism during slavery, Jim Crow, redlining, etc. All we have to do now is the exact same targeting, but in a positive direction to correct the centuries of economic warfare and legalized racism that was targeted against Black America. None of this means that no other disadvantaged groups don't have a case either.
  - radegast 6y ago
    "Targeting in a positive direction." My sides.
bjt2n3904 6y ago
"Other races" don't get special labels on their businesses. Putting tags like "Women Owned" de-legitimizes the owner. It makes women owned business seem stigmatized, as if it's unusual or especially notable. It strips them of their dignity.
- pcbro141 6y ago
  And white men don't get affirmative action. And how come there's no White History Month? (sarcasm)
  - albacur 6y ago
    And native peoples don’t get labels on their businesses, despite centuries of mistreatment. Growth of Hispanic-owned businesses has been slow In the US, and it’s likely caused by socioeconomic conditions. Should these groups get a special label? Who gets to decide which groups get a label?
    - pcbro141 6y ago
      I'm strongly in favor of remedies for the harm caused to Native Americans as well, I was happy to see half of Oklahoma declared a reservation legally recently. They are definitely also a group who was unfairly targeted and deserves specific remedy too.
      - dforrestwilson 6y ago
        So to answer the original question, you think that you should be the one to decide?
  - radegast 6y ago
    Your (sarcasm) explains everything what's wrong with this whole situation. The BLM movement doesn't want equality; they already got that. They want superiority.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
lucaspm98 6y ago
The only way they can be on the same level is if they are not labeled based on the race of the owner. Emphasizing black ownership or any other attribute can only either add advantage over other groups or be a disadvantage. There is no good outcome possible other than it doesn’t affect anything, at which point what’s the point?