• FaceDeer
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    9 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    X, in this case, is “treating people differently based on race.

    I would love if we were to do un-X.

    • twice_twotimes
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      I’d say X is more like “disproportionately and systematically disadvantaging people of color.

      • FaceDeer
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        9 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        So now DEI programs are only for people of colour?

        Why not just “disadvantaged people”? That takes race out of the equation entirely, and everyone is satisfied. Unless excluding disadvantaged people of specific races or genders or whatever is actually the point.

        • twice_twotimes
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          0
          ·
          9 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          Extend to gender, ethnicity, LGBTQ, whateverthe key is the “systematically. We can’t assess relative (dis)advantage at an individual level, but we can recognize it at a systemic level and develop programs that counter it systemically.

          • FaceDeer
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            9 months ago
            link
            fedilink

            “Because it’s easier” is not a good excuse for discrimination, IMO.

            • twice_twotimes
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              0
              ·
              9 months ago
              link
              fedilink

              The choice is “help people from systematically disadvantaged groups” or “don’t. I’d argue that the “don’t” would be the easier choice.

              • FaceDeer
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                9 months ago
                link
                fedilink

                No, that’s a false dichotomy, there are other choices. Such as “help disadvantaged people regardless of their genetics. I reject the “but it’s too hard” argument. If racial discrimination or gender discrimination or discrimination based on orientation is wrong, then it’s wrong. Don’t put an asterisk on it with a list of types that it’s okay for.

                  • FaceDeer
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    0
                    ·
                    9 months ago
                    edit-2
                    9 months ago
                    link
                    fedilink

                    I already did that in the comment you’re responding to:

                    Such as “help disadvantaged people regardless of their genetics.

                    Or two comments previous to this one:

                    Why not just “disadvantaged people”? That takes race out of the equation entirely, and everyone is satisfied.

                    How often do you need it repeated?