• 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?