3 ms·

Stop with the racism. We don't want to make the gap smaller. That's equality of outcome which is illiberal and anti-individualist. You are punishing White peop

Stop with the racism. We don't want to make the gap smaller. That's equality of outcome which is illiberal and anti-individualist. You are punishing White people because of their skin color, which is textbook racism. We want to level the playing field and create equality of opportunity. Invest in poor communities. Build housing. Open the borders. Elect Democrats. Recruit from community colleges instead of informal networks.

tootie 4y ago
The entire point is anti-racism. Not anti-poverty. We have oodles of well-funded anti-poverty programs. Money can't cure people's bias. It's not a great solution what the hell else can be done to undo bad attitudes?
- hackerlight 4y ago
  It's not good to try to fix racism by perpetrating racism, even if it's a different kind of racism. Racism is immoral. Not to mention the unintended consequences of causing fascism by giving justification to the right-wing victim narrative. If you look at Fox News, Daily Wire, and so on, it's mostly victim narrative around anti-White discrimination. You're literally helping to elect Republicans with this stuff and bringing an end to democracy in the US. Anti-poverty is less performative than "anti-racism", but it achieves more with less negative side effects. The funding goes to Black communities in a higher proportion than it goes to any other community, because they tend to be poorer. So you get your asymmetric boost without having to explicitly perpetrate any racism and without giving Fox News ammunition. Also, decriminalize drugs, especially marijuana.
  - tootie 4y ago
    Right-wing media and politicians spent ten years accusing Barack Obama of being of a secret foreigner just because he wasn't white. They will latch on to anything real or imagined to fuel their racism. They still haven't forgiven the left for the Civil Rights Act or winning the Civil War. I have zero interest in appeasing their mania and think the only plausible option is, in fact, to shove this kind of thing down their throats. That's how reconstruction worked. That's how the Voting Rights Act worked. And in this case what Twilio did was of their own volition. It wasn't mandated by any statute. You're arguing they should be legally prevented from voluntarily enacting anti-racist policy? Do you another word for anti-anti-racism?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]

tootie 4y ago

The entire point is anti-racism. Not anti-poverty. We have oodles of well-funded anti-poverty programs. Money can't cure people's bias. It's not a great solution what the hell else can be done to undo bad attitudes?

hackerlight 4y ago
It's not good to try to fix racism by perpetrating racism, even if it's a different kind of racism. Racism is immoral. Not to mention the unintended consequences of causing fascism by giving justification to the right-wing victim narrative. If you look at Fox News, Daily Wire, and so on, it's mostly victim narrative around anti-White discrimination. You're literally helping to elect Republicans with this stuff and bringing an end to democracy in the US. Anti-poverty is less performative than "anti-racism", but it achieves more with less negative side effects. The funding goes to Black communities in a higher proportion than it goes to any other community, because they tend to be poorer. So you get your asymmetric boost without having to explicitly perpetrate any racism and without giving Fox News ammunition. Also, decriminalize drugs, especially marijuana.
- tootie 4y ago
  Right-wing media and politicians spent ten years accusing Barack Obama of being of a secret foreigner just because he wasn't white. They will latch on to anything real or imagined to fuel their racism. They still haven't forgiven the left for the Civil Rights Act or winning the Civil War. I have zero interest in appeasing their mania and think the only plausible option is, in fact, to shove this kind of thing down their throats. That's how reconstruction worked. That's how the Voting Rights Act worked. And in this case what Twilio did was of their own volition. It wasn't mandated by any statute. You're arguing they should be legally prevented from voluntarily enacting anti-racist policy? Do you another word for anti-anti-racism?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]