Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the PPP program is somehow magically immune to that discrimination. Come on. You can't do to that. That's not how it works. The burden of proof is always on a positive claim. General negative claims are intrinsically unprovable. This is because for one, you've begged the question, and there is no level of evidence that you would accept or even list what you would acc…
> The burden of proof is always on a positive claim. The positive claim here is "demonstrable, long documented racist discrimination in the banking system does not affect the PPP program within it".
And you can see the intrinsic impossibility of the burden you're placing to disprove this claim. Besides the fact that you posited no mechanism by which this racist discrimination takes place, what if the racist discrimination in the banking system did affect the PPP program, but was only a minor factor. That is, racist discrimination only explained 5% (or 10% or 30%) of the discrepancy and other factors dominated (racist or otherwise). Is that a possibility? It sure is.
That's why you need to do the legwork. This is especially true when you're talking about politically and culturally sensitive matters. The left typically makes a similar point around social studies research. Certain kind of research results may be used by racists, so you have to take extra care to qualify and frame the results. I agree with both. This is too important to be sloppy with.
I cannot stress this enough, you are hurting your case, because some individuals will believe you, they will do a deeper dive, and they may become disillusioned if they see you lied to them. Trust is so easily broken.