4 ms·

I find this anti racism, itself racist, it's like: oh you have a certain skin colour? Aww you must need our help and special treatment. What if you had to lay o

by gcau 4y ago

I find this anti racism, itself racist, it's like: oh you have a certain skin colour? Aww you must need our help and special treatment. What if you had to lay off either a Black person from a rich, well educated family, vs a white person from a poorer family who really needs the money? Why not just judge people based on their individual self and content of their character, rather than their skin colour and your preconceived assumptions about them because of their colour(e.g thinking all black people are poor or uneducated, thinking all white people are privileged or have easier lives)?

Trifectaffe6 4y ago
sh4un 4y ago
foogazi 4y ago
> Why not just judge people based on their individual self and content of their character Because it’s hard to do
VerminOctopus1 4y ago
You’re arguing for equality over equity. The reason our societies have moved towards encouraging equitable outcomes is because the equality approach like you suggest doesn’t work. It doesn’t work because it ignores inherent systemic biases and racism built into many of our systems. The point is to try to help people who are otherwise marginalized because of their skin colour, disability, etc. This is basic stuff.
- yucky 4y ago
  How do you ensure "equitable outcomes" without resorting to using racial discrimination in your policies?
- gcau 4y ago
  I don't think skin colour is comparable to disabilities. I don't agree with grouping and separating people based on race so you can treat them differently. I agree some people need extra resources given to them, race should have no part to play in it. If someone's poor, they're poor and could need/want help, their skin colour has no role to play in that. I just think your opinion is fundamentally so wrong and misguided, I hope we both have good intentions and want what's best, but I think your path to get there is doing the opposite of what you want.
  - VerminOctopus1 4y ago
    I agree that race should ultimately have no part of it, but that’s not the reality we live in. Systemic racism is real in America, and people are disadvantaged from birth by the color of their skin. I don’t know how to completely fix something so deeply engrained in American society, but taking steps ensure more equitable employment outcomes for people fundamentally disadvantaged by the color of their skin (no, not white) is at least something. I also agree with your general point that in general, disadvantaged people (eg poor white people) should also get some kind of boost and not be left in the dust, there just needs to be some nuance and acknowledgment of the systemic racism that applies to others as well.
wizofaus 4y ago
> Why not just judge people based on their individual self and content of their character, rather than their skin colour... Indeed. Unfortunately there's a mountain of research showing we're pretty hopeless at doing that. And it's not just skin colour (or sex, or other obvious physical markers) - even knowing someone's name causes implicit bias when judging suitability for employment/romantic compatibility etc. But "anti-racist" shouldn't mean "favouritism towards historically marginalised races", rather "checks and balances to prevent further entrenchment of implicit biases".

by gcau 4y ago

Trifectaffe6 4y ago

sh4un 4y ago

foogazi 4y ago

> Why not just judge people based on their individual self and content of their character Because it’s hard to do

VerminOctopus1 4y ago

You’re arguing for equality over equity. The reason our societies have moved towards encouraging equitable outcomes is because the equality approach like you suggest doesn’t work. It doesn’t work because it ignores inherent systemic biases and racism built into many of our systems. The point is to try to help people who are otherwise marginalized because of their skin colour, disability, etc. This is basic stuff.

yucky 4y ago
How do you ensure "equitable outcomes" without resorting to using racial discrimination in your policies?
gcau 4y ago
I don't think skin colour is comparable to disabilities. I don't agree with grouping and separating people based on race so you can treat them differently. I agree some people need extra resources given to them, race should have no part to play in it. If someone's poor, they're poor and could need/want help, their skin colour has no role to play in that. I just think your opinion is fundamentally so wrong and misguided, I hope we both have good intentions and want what's best, but I think your path to get there is doing the opposite of what you want.
- VerminOctopus1 4y ago
  I agree that race should ultimately have no part of it, but that’s not the reality we live in. Systemic racism is real in America, and people are disadvantaged from birth by the color of their skin. I don’t know how to completely fix something so deeply engrained in American society, but taking steps ensure more equitable employment outcomes for people fundamentally disadvantaged by the color of their skin (no, not white) is at least something. I also agree with your general point that in general, disadvantaged people (eg poor white people) should also get some kind of boost and not be left in the dust, there just needs to be some nuance and acknowledgment of the systemic racism that applies to others as well.

wizofaus 4y ago

> Why not just judge people based on their individual self and content of their character, rather than their skin colour... Indeed. Unfortunately there's a mountain of research showing we're pretty hopeless at doing that. And it's not just skin colour (or sex, or other obvious physical markers) - even knowing someone's name causes implicit bias when judging suitability for employment/romantic compatibility etc. But "anti-racist" shouldn't mean "favouritism towards historically marginalised races", rather "checks and balances to prevent further entrenchment of implicit biases".