Tyre Nichols beating: Race Theory vs CRITICAL Race Theory

It's not a criteria. It's systemic. But even if it were a criteria, how would you enforce it?

So you would have the government dictating to businesses how to hire. How would the government enforce this?

So your solution is to stop caring about systemic racism?

This is why Affirmative Action is also known as Positive Discrimination. But I'll leave it here so you can expand on your plan.

 

Wrong! "Black" is an ethnicity. There is no standard "black" skin color. There are only clines that can overlap over multiple ethnic groups.... including "whites".

Now are you starting to get it?

 

No, I don't, but that's economic discrimination, not ethnic or racial discrimination.

Or would you not help poor white kids?

 

We already do.

You sure do love strawmen eh?

No euphemism is going to change the fact that you are seeking to discriminate for and against people based on skin colour.

 

Blah blah blah. I asked you before how you qualify people, and you went off on a rant of strawmen. I don't expect different now.

If they qualify for this special treatment help or treatment based on anything but actual need, wealth, etc, and you use immutable personal characteristics as proxy, you are engaging in discirination unacceptable to me.

 

Poor white kids get Pell grants too. Proportional to the general population of poor white people.

 

You do?

Well, we don't want the government telling businesses how to evaluate job candidates in this country. We just want them to offer them all equal opportunity.

 

So NOW do you understand that there is a word for that?

Just a reminder: ethnicity!

There is also a word that people inadequately use for that: "Race". It's inadequate because it doesn't exist. i.e. it does not describe any human group in existence.

Happy to have been of help.

 

Proportional to the number of others who happen to be the same skin colour? Why should it matter how many other people of your particular skin colour there happen to be? That's a silly thing to base any sort of aid on. How about doing it based on actual need of individuals? Is that not how its done there?

 

I don't know. You're the one talking about skin color. I'm talking about ethnic groups.

 

You may not. But I think most people in your country do, and have done so for a long time now. There was a time when it was ok for companies to have "no irish", "no blacks" or "no women" policies. That's no longer ok. Nor is it good business.

Based on what you've written here, I don't think that you do.

 

You were calling for special treatment for "black people". That's an "ethnic group" to you?

And you then define "ethnic group" as wealth level, education level, etc?

Since you're calling "black people" an ethnic group and calling "ethnicity" wealth level, education level, etc, do you say a white person become a black person or vice versa?

Here we recognize that people of any skin pigmentation, gender, etc, can be rich or poor, educated or not, etc, and that all people can move from one such status to another.

 

According to the Constitution it's the government's obligation to protect liberty and equality for all. Apart from that, I doubt many Americans want the government telling businesses they need to blot out names in the resumes their applicants submit, or that they have to consider income levels.

But you haven't answered the question. You discriminate against people according to test scores. And against younger people who haven't lived enough to have the achievements of older people. Or people with higher income levels (which is weird, because the income level of most is ZERO before they get the job). And you want the government to FORCE companies to discriminate.

Mind you, I don't believe any of this is discrimination (except the part about the government forcing it). But YOU do. So you need to explain.

 

Your strawmen are endless.

I said that unlike yourself, I actually fully oppose discriminating based on race, gender, etc*. I didn't say I oppose discirminating altogether. You SHOULD discriminate based on merit for the actual job.

.

 

Of course! What else? I've been saying that for days...

I do not define "ethnic group". I only point out that those are elements that may play a part on the ethnicity a person self-identifies with.

Maybe. Because an ethnic group is a group you self-identify with. But an individual can certainly belong to more than one ethnic group.

People can certainly rise or fall in their economic level, or change religion, or change their gender ...

 

Which gets back to my point, you're discussing an aid package that discriminates based on wealth and income, which is entirely different than one that discriminates on race or ethnicity. Do you agree?

 

He appears to equate wealth and income to being part of ethnicity. Pretty messed up if you ask me.

 

There's certainly a correlation with wealth/income and race, but that's why programs that focus on wealth/income disparity are far better than those that focus on race: they are a far more precise means of helping those who actually need the help.

 

Exactly what I've been saying. And they also don't perpetuate the idea that a particular race and poverty must go together, or that its ok to discriminate against people based on their race.

 

But individuals in identifiable groups have needs in common--like women.

I don't think LeBron James' kids need financial help. Help should be grounded in need.

We should just play it straight. People at a disadvantage because of race, ethnicity, sex, gender, etc. will be picked up by programs to help people based on need.

Makes sense.

 

Sins of the father? The people who were discriminated over the years? Get nothing. People who benefitted from discrimination? They get to continue benefitting.

Compensates whom? Not the victims.

How about trying to end overt discrimination?

 

It may or may not make things worse, but I don't think it in any way solves the problem.

 

That's the key people miss with racist thinking. They think that giving something to person X1 somehow compensates person X2 whom harm was done to, just becuase both share being X.

 

I wouldn't call them out as racist, but I do think the approach is wrong.

 

"Etc" is very broad.

However, you DO favor discrimination based on those things, because that discrimination is already built into the system. And you propose doing nothing to compensate.