4 ms·

> I'm not pretending, racism is racism, you don't get to redefine what words mean in order to fit your narrative. I’m done arguing with a throwaway account if

> I'm not pretending, racism is racism, you don't get to redefine what words mean in order to fit your narrative. I’m done arguing with a throwaway account if you’re going to be intentionally naive. “It’s not racist because it doesn’t specifically talk about race” is logical cowardice. The rest of your comment is similarly tortured. That some POC succeed despite racism does not mean racism doesn’t exist.

ta2164 5y ago
>I’m done arguing with a throwaway account if you’re going to be intentionally naive. Don't interpret logical reality as naivete. I know it's in style on the left to do this in 2021, but stop. >“It’s not racist because it doesn’t specifically talk about race” is logical cowardice. It's logical fact. If it doesn't specifically discriminate against race, a characteristic of race, etc., the law is by definition logically not racist. The existence of inequity does not prove the existence of inequality. >The rest of your comment is similarly tortured. Similarly factual and logical, yes. >That some POC succeed despite racism does not mean racism doesn’t exist. Similarly, that some POC don't succeed despite the laws not being racist does not mean racism exists.
ta2165 5y ago
>I’m done arguing with a throwaway account if you’re going to be intentionally naive. Don't interpret logical reality as counter-narrative naivete. I know it's in style to do this in 2021. >“It’s not racist because it doesn’t specifically talk about race” is logical cowardice. It's logical fact. If it doesn't specifically discriminate against race, a characteristic of race, etc., the law is by definition logically not racist. The existence of inequity does not prove the existence of inequality. >The rest of your comment is similarly tortured. Similarly factual and logical, yes. >That some POC succeed despite racism does not mean racism doesn’t exist. Similarly, that some POC don't succeed despite the laws not being racist does not mean racism exists.

ta2164 5y ago

>I’m done arguing with a throwaway account if you’re going to be intentionally naive. Don't interpret logical reality as naivete. I know it's in style on the left to do this in 2021, but stop. >“It’s not racist because it doesn’t specifically talk about race” is logical cowardice. It's logical fact. If it doesn't specifically discriminate against race, a characteristic of race, etc., the law is by definition logically not racist. The existence of inequity does not prove the existence of inequality. >The rest of your comment is similarly tortured. Similarly factual and logical, yes. >That some POC succeed despite racism does not mean racism doesn’t exist. Similarly, that some POC don't succeed despite the laws not being racist does not mean racism exists.

ta2165 5y ago

>I’m done arguing with a throwaway account if you’re going to be intentionally naive. Don't interpret logical reality as counter-narrative naivete. I know it's in style to do this in 2021. >“It’s not racist because it doesn’t specifically talk about race” is logical cowardice. It's logical fact. If it doesn't specifically discriminate against race, a characteristic of race, etc., the law is by definition logically not racist. The existence of inequity does not prove the existence of inequality. >The rest of your comment is similarly tortured. Similarly factual and logical, yes. >That some POC succeed despite racism does not mean racism doesn’t exist. Similarly, that some POC don't succeed despite the laws not being racist does not mean racism exists.