24 ms·

Look I'm trying to find a charitable way to read this, really. But why is your project here establishing a narrow definition of racism with a high burden of pro

Look I'm trying to find a charitable way to read this, really. But why is your project here establishing a narrow definition of racism with a high burden of proof? Systems and policies that have disparate racial impacts are racist. Resisting changes to those policies that would narrow the impacts is somewhere on the wack-to-definitely-racist continuum, yes depending a lot on the specific details of the situation. What matters here is the impact, not the intention. If someone is supporting a policy with a racist result, or resisting changes to them, I'm gonna call them racist too. If they don't like that assessment they can ignore it or stop those actions.

giantg2 5y ago
"But why is your project here establishing a narrow definition of racism with a high burden of proof?" I don't believe my statement is looking for a narrow definition, just a valid one. I'd like some level of proof. It doesn't have to be high. The real problem here is the insinuation that people who bring up potentially valid issues related to a low income housing project are racist. Their concern could be a valid one with no racial basis. "What matters here is the impact, not the intention." Please, do show me a definition that shows intent is not a component. The dictionaries I looked at do not agree with you. Even then, would it be racist for you to assume a specific race is disproportionately affected by low income housing? If a race is affected disproportionately by lack of housing, are you inviting any of the affected people to share your home? Does that make you racist? "Systems and policies that have disparate racial impacts are racist." No, they have "disparate racial impacts". By your definition, what system isn't racist? Every system has some disparity of racial impact, even if it is meritorious (take the recent posts on here about Harvard quotas and Asians). I firmly believe that without intent, a system is not racist, but could have racial disparities - there is a difference. The definition you're trying to push seems to be more worthy of the insults you're pushing at me. You mention a racist policy. What policy is that? As there is not one mentioned in the context of sentence mentioning racism.

giantg2 5y ago

"But why is your project here establishing a narrow definition of racism with a high burden of proof?" I don't believe my statement is looking for a narrow definition, just a valid one. I'd like some level of proof. It doesn't have to be high. The real problem here is the insinuation that people who bring up potentially valid issues related to a low income housing project are racist. Their concern could be a valid one with no racial basis. "What matters here is the impact, not the intention." Please, do show me a definition that shows intent is not a component. The dictionaries I looked at do not agree with you. Even then, would it be racist for you to assume a specific race is disproportionately affected by low income housing? If a race is affected disproportionately by lack of housing, are you inviting any of the affected people to share your home? Does that make you racist? "Systems and policies that have disparate racial impacts are racist." No, they have "disparate racial impacts". By your definition, what system isn't racist? Every system has some disparity of racial impact, even if it is meritorious (take the recent posts on here about Harvard quotas and Asians). I firmly believe that without intent, a system is not racist, but could have racial disparities - there is a difference. The definition you're trying to push seems to be more worthy of the insults you're pushing at me. You mention a racist policy. What policy is that? As there is not one mentioned in the context of sentence mentioning racism.