• twice_twotimes@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    11 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@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 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
          ·
          11 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
              11 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?