I understand this thread is bouncing between the legal and extra-legal. My point is that wealth begets preference.
Is it racist to discriminate on the basis of race?
Are all white men wealthy?
No need. Their wasn’t even written preference to white men in the constitution but that didn’t stop white supremacy.
Majority supremacy.
1 Like
It’s not discrimination to reverse the affects of white supremacy. No matter how much you want it to be.
White supremacy. Most Black people were property of white men. But that wasn’t in the constitution either.
You aren’t answering the question. That it is discrimination based on race is not in doubt.
The question is; is it racist to discriminate based on race?
Majority supremacy.
No. That aspect of this discussion has been covered in other threads. But I will say that I would like to see a philosophy applied uniformly. If preference is legal and acceptable in one circumstance, it weakens the argument against it in another. No?
I already answered this. I said it depends.
It’s not racist to reverse the affects of racism.
It is when you employ racism to do it.
No you didn’t. You asked then answered a question you made up.
The repressive tolerance is run amok in your posts.
It is either racist to discriminate on race or it is not.
I’m not asking you to rationalize it.
On what basis can your question be only answered yes or no?
Okay. Classism?
If it is a program designed to help the financially challenged, shouldn’t it be means based instead of race?
1 Like
On the basis that it is a yes or no question.
You defined it as yes/no but that does not mean your definition is correct.
Grammar did.
I said it depends. What part of that is not understood?
Oh I think I see the problem now. You think it’s that simple.
