• FaceDeer@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    10 months ago

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

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

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

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

      • FaceDeer@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          Extend to gender, ethnicity, LGBTQ, whatever…the 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.

            • twice_twotimes
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              10 months ago

              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@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                10 months ago

                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@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    10 months ago

                    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?