• twice_twotimes@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      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
        0
        ·
        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.

        • steventrouble@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Ok then, how about instead of complaining about the best solution we’ve thought of so far, you tell us what your brilliant solution to racism is? I’ll wait.

          • FaceDeer@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 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?