4 ms·
GP isn't saying "non economically profitable neighbourhoods are non white." GP is saying that white non-economically-profitable neighbourhoods get no protectio
by leereeves 3y ago
GP isn't saying "non economically profitable neighbourhoods are non white."
GP is saying that white non-economically-profitable neighbourhoods get no protection from that rule.
- spookybones 3y agoDoesn’t preventing discrimination based on income level cover that?
- leereeves 3y agoNot always. For example, not when rural areas are excluded. Also not if, for example, an ISP decides to expand to a minority area instead of a white area because of DEI policies. In theory that should also be forbidden by the rule against racial discrimination, but in practice it's often not enforced that way.
- vacuity 3y agoWould that people could be trusted to not discriminate in any way...maybe some subconscious personal bias, but then surely a group could even out the biases.
- klyrs 3y ago[flagged]
- leereeves 3y agoWhich should we do? Disallow discrimination against white people on the basis of race? Or dismiss discussion of such discrimination as "specious bullshit flogging the reverse racism trope"? I ask because those are diametrically opposed positions, and your second sentence illustrates why the first sometimes doesn't happen.
- text0404 3y agowhat are you talking about? this is about discriminating based on race, which includes the white race. your implicit assumption here is that anti-discrimination measures for minorities is discriminatory against white people. which is, uh, not a great take.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- leereeves 3y ago> anti-discrimination measures for minorities is discriminatory against white people That is often the case because that's what "antiracists" admit and encourage: "The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." To that, I say, no, adding more discrimination to the world does not remedy discrimination.