31 ms·

At least in Canada, discrimination is considered the denial of something, but anything that improves someone's condition on the basis of race is fine. [Race] m

At least in Canada, discrimination is considered the denial of something, but anything that improves someone's condition on the basis of race is fine. [Race] may not own houses. -- Illegal. [Race] is given extra help to own houses. -- Legal

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
Odd, I suspect the same people would offer the idea that wealth disparity is bad.
mvuijlst 6y ago
Isn't "[Race] is given extra help to own houses" the same as "[not-Race] is given no extra help to own houses"?
- lumost 6y ago
  On average [Not-Race] has more wealth to afford houses, or home ownership is more common than [Race] in these programs. You do see anger when individuals perceive they can't afford homes, school, or other big ticket items and perceive that they aren't given help - but that isn't quite the same as denying people something.
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    >On average [Not-Race] has more wealth to afford houses // Which is fine if you're part of that the well-off, but if you're just a person and not benefitted by the categroy association with rich people who happen to be the same race -- a simplistic association that discriminatory, racist people make -- then you're shit out of luck. Discriminating against people is denying them something, it's denying them a fair shot, fair treatment by the government. Regardless of their sex or skin colour they deserve fair opportunity.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
    > perceive that they aren't given help - but that isn't quite the same as denying people something. How is that not denying them help? > On average [Not-Race] has more wealth to afford houses, or home ownership is more common than [Race] in these programs. So why not just have your aid program be based on wealth, rather than race?
gotoeleven 6y ago
I don't understand how this logic can hold up when resources are finite.
- DangitBobby 6y ago
  It doesn't, they were just looking for a way to justify discrimination that they saw as positive and no one was there to defend against it.
morlockabove 6y ago
Hiring/acceptance is zero-sum. Privileging one group is taking spots away from another.
g3e0 6y ago
Given that there is only a finite amount of money/resources available to help people, giving extra to someone based on their race is equivalent to depriving another of help based on their race.
floxy 6y ago
Is there something you can point me to, in order to learn more about Canada's approach? So you're saying that a program specifically to give cash to white men only as "extra help to own houses" would be perfectly fine?
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  Affirmative action programs have a specific constitutional carve out up here: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html#:~:text=(1)%20Every%20individual%20is%20equal,or%20mental%20or%20physical%20disability https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html#:~:te....

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago

Odd, I suspect the same people would offer the idea that wealth disparity is bad.

mvuijlst 6y ago

Isn't "[Race] is given extra help to own houses" the same as "[not-Race] is given no extra help to own houses"?

lumost 6y ago
On average [Not-Race] has more wealth to afford houses, or home ownership is more common than [Race] in these programs. You do see anger when individuals perceive they can't afford homes, school, or other big ticket items and perceive that they aren't given help - but that isn't quite the same as denying people something.
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  >On average [Not-Race] has more wealth to afford houses // Which is fine if you're part of that the well-off, but if you're just a person and not benefitted by the categroy association with rich people who happen to be the same race -- a simplistic association that discriminatory, racist people make -- then you're shit out of luck. Discriminating against people is denying them something, it's denying them a fair shot, fair treatment by the government. Regardless of their sex or skin colour they deserve fair opportunity.
- yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
  > perceive that they aren't given help - but that isn't quite the same as denying people something. How is that not denying them help? > On average [Not-Race] has more wealth to afford houses, or home ownership is more common than [Race] in these programs. So why not just have your aid program be based on wealth, rather than race?

gotoeleven 6y ago

I don't understand how this logic can hold up when resources are finite.

DangitBobby 6y ago
It doesn't, they were just looking for a way to justify discrimination that they saw as positive and no one was there to defend against it.

morlockabove 6y ago

Hiring/acceptance is zero-sum. Privileging one group is taking spots away from another.

g3e0 6y ago

Given that there is only a finite amount of money/resources available to help people, giving extra to someone based on their race is equivalent to depriving another of help based on their race.

floxy 6y ago

Is there something you can point me to, in order to learn more about Canada's approach? So you're saying that a program specifically to give cash to white men only as "extra help to own houses" would be perfectly fine?

MattGaiser 6y ago
Affirmative action programs have a specific constitutional carve out up here: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html#:~:text=(1)%20Every%20individual%20is%20equal,or%20mental%20or%20physical%20disability https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html#:~:te....