• 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?