31–40 of 119 posts
Because the moment you treat someone different because of things like skin color it's racist, you know.
Doesn't matter if it's a preferred or discriminatory treatment because any preferable treatment for one group of people based on race is a discrimination against all other.
"Anti-racist" strategies bewilder me. Am I now supposed to consider the skin color of the business owner before shopping there? Because I thought making business decisions based on skin color was racist.
According to "Anti-racists", MLK's dream of "judging people by the content of their character" is now a racist dog-whistle. Not sure when, but eventually the shoe must drop and people realize this so-called "Anti-racism" is an incredibly racist ideology. This is not progress.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the whole point is for us to fight amongst ourselves and to sow division.
I don't see how Google adding a black-owned business label might encourage a previously non-racist person to now want to 'fight' black people or feel ill will towards black people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can we provide economic remedy for the centuries of economic warfare against Black Americans if any remedy specifically addressed to Black people is considered 'racist'? How else do we close the black-white wealth gap legacy of legal racism in America if we're not allowed to do anything to help Black people specifically out of fear of "reverse racism"? Can we worry about getting Black America the economic remedie…
I should think, perhaps by helping individual people instead. If someone is poor then someone might help them, I suppose. Then it won't be racist, it will be individualistic, it would seem. Hiring someone for the job should be decided on if they are competent at that job, not on other criteria such as black, white, men, women, taller, religious, etc, unless that is relevant for this kind of job (such as acting in a m…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Be_an_Antiracist
Rather than trying to make tired points in 140 characters.
"Anti-racist" strategies bewilder me. Am I now supposed to consider the skin color of the business owner before shopping there? Because I thought making business decisions based on skin color was racist.
Yes! You’re getting it!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to "Anti-racists", MLK's dream of "judging people by the content of their character" is now a racist dog-whistle. Not sure when, but eventually the shoe must drop and people realize this so-called "Anti-racism" is an incredibly racist ideology. This is not progress.
How can we provide economic remedy for the centuries of economic warfare against Black Americans if any remedy specifically addressed to Black people is considered 'racist'? How else do we close the black-white wealth gap legacy of legal racism in America if we're not allowed to do anything to help Black people specifically out of fear of "reverse racism"? Can we worry about getting Black America the economic remedie…
It doesn't matter to me if they are black-owned or women-led or whatever (and, in order to avoid (possibly unintentional) bias, perhaps it should not be listed by default, unless you specifically look for that information). I should think what matters is the quality of the products/services. Business hours, telephone number, price, etc, are much more important than whether or not those people are black.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You really don’t see how elevating a single race over others might be an issue?
I think it's acceptable to elevate Black people to be on the same level as other races in America as opposed to disadvantaged. I actually think Black America is owed a lot more than what Google is doing here after centuries of legalized racism and being shut out of building wealth, but that's the US government that owes them.
And considering how many immigrants there starting out with literally nothing (one example) how we should pick one race to help but not all terribly disadvantaged people?