• 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?