When Should the Federal Government use Race to Exclude Beneficiaries?

you may need to specify which federal government. There's more than one

Quote by CaitlinX

you may need to specify which federal government. There's more than one

We've been discussing The United States of America, but there could be similar scenarios in other countries. Is there another nation's situation you are interested in disgusting?

Yes, you again posted a lot of words but did not answer the questions, just as l thought.

You cowardly called the questions, foolish. Shame on you, old man.

Are you scared to say you oppose government programs that help African-Americans narrow the gap to true equality in the USA?

Well, if you haven't grown balls to put it all on the line by your 70s, l am sure you never will. Maybe some other of your personalities will come to your aid.

Quote by ElCoco

What you're talking about there are German reparations for the Holocaust. What this discussion is about is American government programs with racist policies.

Are you under the impression this isn't a cultural version of reparations? Probably a more effective one than giving a lump sum to descendants, though that helps, too.

I say this isn't a racist policy.

Quote by AngelEthics

Discrimination actually had two definitions. The second one is: recognize a distinction; differentiate. You're mixing the two definitions up.

The entire thread is based on a dishonest semantic game. It's about the best you can expect from some people. But the argument that the policy is discriminatory is like claiming that a bullet discriminates by hitting its target and not everything else. It's unlikely anyone is quitting the NRA in protest over how unfair it is to do anything as discriminatory as aiming, and going to work in the garage building a less exclusionary doomsday machine. That would be stupid... about as stupid as stating that a program that explicitly targets the unique needs and issues of people of color should apply equally to everyone (especially white people - as Orwell famously wrote, some animals are more equal than others).

Quote by Chryses

Although I know of treaties between the U.S. government and various Native American (Indian) nations, I am unaware of any treaty between the U.S. government and "black, African America, Hispanic, Latino, Hasidic Jew, Asian Indian or Spanish-speaking American". Are you aware of any?

With that as a background, there could be three different answers to your question.

1. The U.S. government is inconsistent with its policies.

2. The programs to which you refer in your first paragraph are ethnically discriminatory.

3. The policies of the SBA I have documented are not discriminatory.

We certainly do have treaties with the Jewish state (Israel). India, as well. The problem with setting this condition for creating government aid to make up for wrongdoing is that a group of people with a "nation" has a structure to enter into agreements. Did slaves, kidnapped from their countries, sold into servitude, and kept there generationally have this structure? Nope. And does America have anything to do with that? Yep.

I would agree with (1) above.

Quote by Just_A_Guy_You_Know

The entire thread is based on a dishonest semantic game. It's about the best you can expect from some people. But the argument that the policy is discriminatory is like claiming that a bullet discriminates by hitting its target and not everything else. It's unlikely anyone is quitting the NRA in protest over how unfair it is to do anything as discriminatory as aiming, and going to work in the garage building a less exclusionary doomsday machine. That would be stupid... about as stupid as stating that a program that explicitly targets the unique needs and issues of people of color should apply equally to everyone (especially white people - as Orwell famously wrote, some animals are more equal than others).

Thank you.

This is a writing site, right? Having "discriminating taste" doesn't mean you're racist, even if the evil word is in there.

I don't understand how some people can see the racism, sexism, and xenophobia that exists in our society, even acknowledge it, but don't want to do anything about it.

People telling me that the Minority Business Development Agency is racist have offered no other ideas (unless I'm mistaken and if I am, please tell me again) and no solutions. As if this whole problem didn't come from white people recognizing other white people (and who isn't white) and making decisions based on it, in this case out of prejudice. But, now, conveniently, we're all colorblind and can't do anything race-related. SMH.

Quote by ElCoco

I'm under the impression a

Policy: a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a government, party, business, or individual

isn't

Reparations: the making of amends for a wrong one has done, by paying money to or otherwise helping those who have been wronged

If you've decided to change the meaning of words, we won't be able to have much conversation.

.

You've said that before, but since the policy we're talking about uses race to discriminate between who is and who isn't eligible, the policy is racist. You might approve of this policy, and I disapprove of it, but our approval or disapproval of the policy's racial discrimination doesn't change the racial discrimination.

ElCoco, are you being purposely obtuse? Reparations are typically achieved through a policy. This isn't vocabulary gymnastics.

I disagree that this is racist. We've already discussed why that's the case. Creating a resource for people who were previously denied resources is not racism, just because we recognize who they are. So, to be clear, you disapprove of the Agency that has existed since 1969 because it doesn't include white people?

Quote by ElCocko

No, I don't think I'm being purposely obtuse.

oh...

It's by accident

damn

Quote by ElCoco

No, I don't think I'm being purposely obtuse. I don't think I'm being at all obtuse. I've reminded you that the word "policy" doesn't have the same meaning as "reparations." The topic's the SBA's policy that uses the applicant's race to decide the applicant's eligibility. That has nothing to do with reparations. That's an interesting topic for another thread, maybe.

.

I've looked at the posts in this thread, and nobody's said creating a resource for people who were previously denied resources is racism. What's being questioned is the racially discriminatory policy it uses to provide those resources. You know I haven't said I disapprove of the SBA, so why did you suggest I do with your question?

Why would I ever need reminded that two different words have two different definitions?

Of course this has to do with reparations. The point of this agency is to address inequality in resources in business. That's an effort to redress wrongs, wrongs that were perpetrated based on race.

So let me get this straight. Nobody said that providing resources for people who have been denied resources is racism? But somehow funding an agency that has existed since 1969 and does just this IS racist because they name the groups that were denied resources?

I don't believe it's a racially discriminatory policy to identify the wronged group, name them, and put resources their way. How would you do it?

Quote by ElCocko

I think you need to be reminded they’re different because you’ve spent the last few posts associating them as if they mean the same.

.

I don’t think a thread about racially discriminatory policy has anything to do with reparations because “policy” doesn’t have the same meaning as “reparations.”

.

Yes, that’s right. When I looked at the posts in this thread, none of them gave me any impression that providing resources to people who have been denied resources is racism. I also don’t think anybody’s said or suggested the agency’s racist. Have you found any posts that make you think the poster believes providing resources to people who have been denied resources is racism?

.

Yes, you’ve said several times now you think a policy that discriminates based on race isn’t racially discriminatory.

.

How to fix the inequality you and I are aware of is a different question, and like reparations, it might be a good thread topic, but it definitely isn’t the topic of this thread. Before you ask, I’ll tell you I think racial discrimination isn’t the right way to go.

So you don't have a point besides a semantical one about the word "racism" itself... Profound.

Quote by ElCoco

I think you need to be reminded they’re different because you’ve spent the last few posts associating them as if they mean the same.

.

I don’t think a thread about racially discriminatory policy has anything to do with reparations because “policy” doesn’t have the same meaning as “reparations.”

.

Yes, that’s right. When I looked at the posts in this thread, none of them gave me any impression that providing resources to people who have been denied resources is racism. I also don’t think anybody’s said or suggested the agency’s racist. Have you found any posts that make you think the poster believes providing resources to people who have been denied resources is racism?

.

Yes, you’ve said several times now you think a policy that discriminates based on race isn’t racially discriminatory.

.

How to fix the inequality you and I are aware of is a different question, and like reparations, it might be a good thread topic, but it definitely isn’t the topic of this thread. Before you ask, I’ll tell you I think racial discrimination isn’t the right way to go.

Dis you?

Quote by ElCoco

I agree.

The federal government's institutionalizing racism in this agency's policies. That can't end well.

Quote by ElCoco

Then how can you say "Dis you?" and mean it?

I feel like maybe I broke your brain a little.

See, you said that nobody suggested the agency was racist and asked for posts. To which I quoted you calling the agency racist. See?

Quote by ElCoco

I agree.

The federal government's institutionalizing racism in this agency's policies. That can't end well.

Then you pointed out that I said that I didn't think the agency (and I'll say here, their policies) weren't discriminatory and then quoted me saying... they weren't discriminatory.

😐

Just let me know which of your past statements I'm agreeing to disagree with:

Quote by ElCoco

Yes, that’s right. When I looked at the posts in this thread, none of them gave me any impression that providing resources to people who have been denied resources is racism. I also don’t think anybody’s said or suggested the agency’s racist. Have you found any posts that make you think the poster believes providing resources to people who have been denied resources is racism?

Quote by ElCoco

I agree.

The federal government's institutionalizing racism in this agency's policies. That can't end well.

Quote by ElCoco

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue.

You've embarrassed yourself again.

Quote by Just_A_Guy_You_Know

The entire thread is based on a dishonest semantic game.

This.

Quote by Chryses

When is discrimination not discrimination?

Why don't you specifically tell us?

Why stop with racism?

The department of HHS has specific programs for children (head start, child welfare). Seems a little ageist.

The Department of agriculture, HHS, DOJ, SBA, State Department, and department of Veteran affairs all have programs for women. Sexism, anyone?

There are federal government agencies that serve just the disabled community. Very discriminatory. Do you know how many curbs they had to jackhammer for people in wheelchairs? The nerve.

Quote by Ironic

What with racially discriminatory policies being identified as non-discriminatory and members being attacked for even bringing up the subject of racially discriminatory policies, it seems to me the TT isn't ready for a discussion on this subject.

Since when is being disagreed with an attack? Perhaps you aren't ready for any conversations in the Think Tank if you use "being attacked" so frivolously in response to an opposing viewpoint on a social issue. Yikes.

Quote by Tantaleyes

It took a war to end slavery. It'll take a long while to get rid of racism.

We'll need a whole other war to end racism against white people. Probably a constitutional amendment solidifying their rights in this country. We have a long way to go before white people can be seen as equals. The MBDA being funded as government agency has brought that truth into clear relief.

🙄

Quote by Ironic

It seems you and I don't agree about what being attacked is. I think here, being attacked means being called racist for criticizing government policies when they use somebody's race as an eligibility criterion. Maybe you don't think that's an attack.

I don't because:

1. I understand context and I'm not looking to be offended in an effort to circumvent conversations and hard truths regarding the necessity of policies that are a drop in the bucket in combating the long-reaching and long-standing effects of systemic racism. Doing so perpetuates racism, and if one perpetuates racism, they can be called a racist.

2. I'm aware that it's a term that doesn't apply to me, especially because I don't govern or express myself in a way that anyone could perceive as racist. And also because I do not possess the systemic power to be racist (and even if to some degree I do by way of semantics, I've no interest in wielding such power).

Your sensibilities mean nothing to me, and if they're so fragile, reconsider your participation in the Think Tank. Or at the very least, whine about it somewhere else. Please and thanks.

Quote by Ironic

I don't agree that institutionalizing racist policies helps get rid of racism. Doing so perpetuates racism.

We're not talking about you. What's fragile about commenting on what's posted here?

You're right Ironic, it perpetuates racism because when white people like you see anyone who isn't white benefiting in some way it makes you hate them more and act more racist.

Quote by Ironic

We're not talking about you.

You made it about me when you said the following: "Maybe you don't think that's an attack." Therefore I responded accordingly.

Quote by Ironic

What's fragile about commenting on what's posted here?

Thanks for asking. I think it's fragile to cry foul of policies that center the historically disenfranchised in exclusion of those who have experienced no such barriers.

Quote by Ironic

If the policies are racially discriminatory, then yes, I'll disagree with them.

So?

Quote by Ironic

It took you a while, but I'm glad you agree that institutionalizing racist policies in the government perpetuates racism.

The thing is, people, including normal white people, know racists like you exist. You whine and cry and that's fine because society carries on. We all just learn to avoid you and make fun of you behind your back or confront you when you get a little too aggressive with your misplaced hatred.

Quote by Ironic

So, you mistook reasonable criticism for fragility.

You're mistaking fragility for reasonable criticism.

Your fragility makes reason impossible. Reasonable people understand the need for empowering the disenfranchised in ways that center them, even at the exclusion of those who have long benefited from systemic racism. Being decentered is hard, but who cares? I don't.

Quote by Magical_felix

Is Ironic the little spoon or is it you? Like when you guys were having your public flirtation a few months ago?

Jack, knock it the fuck off. Please and thank you.

Quote by Ironic

You call me a racist because I don't agree with racial discrimination. Sure felix.

I call you a racist because you're a chinless freak who says racist things.

Like, I don't get upset if a woman gets to tee off from a closer distance to the hole during a round of golf because I am stronger. If I were to ruin the round of golf by focusing on that it would make me appear weak, stupid and sexist.

Quote by Ironic

And that's what you do instead of debating racially discriminating policies.

Debate? All you do is repeat the same dumb thing over and over again.

Ironic: 2+2=5

Anyone else: Um, it's 4 actually.

Ironic: No it's 5

Anyone else: when you take 2 units and add them to 2 other units it comes out to 4, that's just simple math.

Ironic: You're discriminating against the number 5

Anyone else: You're an idiot.

Ironic: You insult me because you can't debate.

lol

Quote by Ironic

Not at all. Racism's a problem, and discussing the pros and cons of how it can be reduced is a reasonable way of working to reduce it,

The fact that other people disagree with the perpetuation of racist policies is very reasonable.

OK, what is your solution to reduce racism toward white people?