> Please explain a better system for outcomes than putting in the work and earning the outcome. You are not understanding my point. It comes down to the criter

> Please explain a better system for outcomes than putting in the work and earning the outcome. You are not understanding my point. It comes down to the criteria used to judge whether or not you've "earned" the outcome. You're assuming these are fair and I'm pointing out they are actually significantly tilted to favoring the dominant group. Let's say my family runs the town and happens to be fast sprinters. The people of the town complain that they'd like some say in how the town is run and threaten chaos if they don't get it. We bow to pressure but we set the new rules, and say, "Fine. We'll have a town council to run things that anyone can be on. We'll hold a 100 yard-dash to determine the members." It's objective. It's based on merit. But it ensures my family says in control. If my family had been poor sprinters but strong long-distance runners we might have held a 20K race instead. Still objective. Still merit-based. You still "put in the work and earn the outcome". But it still ensures my family stays in control. > Even the use of the word racist here is nonsense. It implies malicious intent. It's probably useful to understand the distinction between "racism" and "systemic racism" here. Racism is the belief that one race is superior (or conversely, inferior) to another. That's someone's direct thought or intent. Systemic racism, on the other hand, is a system that hold one race down while holding another race above them. Systemic racism doesn't require anyone to have have any racist beliefs or intent. It's just a system that has a certain effect. However, once someone becomes aware of a system that advantages one race to the detriment of another, whether they decide to support it or look for a better way is where there is potential racism.