> - Things in the past can't be fixed. We can't "fix" past discrimination any more than we can fix 9/11 or retroactively fix the holocaust.
You're right -- fix is not the right word. But you can dampen the impact of the event. For example, I think we provided various types of relief to different classes of victims of 9/11.
> - Are you trying to decrease discrimination or racially biased life outcomes? If you want less discrimination, adding more discrimination is obviously counterproductive. If what you want is more wealthy black people, why don't you say that?
I want people to not be impacted by discriminatory practices. The problem is that there are many practices that exist, for which their reduction in the name of this cause would be noted as discriminatory in themselves. At any given point in time you often must choose between which discriminatory practice to continue. For example, giving admissions benefits to legacies. Or tax breaks for estate taxes. Or property tax based funding of schools. Etc...
> - Having discriminatory hiring quotas misunderstands how wealth creation works. Promoting people in companies based on skin tone or gender instead of their skills makes companies weaker, and in turn rusts the engine of capitalism. That makes everyone more poor.
This is an example of a practice that only looks like it helps underreresented minorities, but is actually long-term discriminatory against them. I don't support such policies. In fact as you note, this actually helps you as a white male even more -- and I actually do believe this.
> - There's lots of ways to help people of color without discriminating against white people. Like introducing better social support for single parent families, reducing prison sentences for non-violent offenders, etc.
This is where it gets interesting and where anti-racism comes into play. There are things that can reduce the gap, and based on anti-racism principles these policies are indeed anti-racist, and discriminatory against whites. Again, it's about being results driven and not intent driven. These practices can reduce discrimination aginst minorities in outcomes -- but the mere fact of doing so increases discrimination against whites in outcome (at least relatively so). I don't think you can do one w/o the other. This is why the only way to counter past discrimination is future discrimination, even if not intended to discriminate.
And what anti-racism asks is to look at all policies through this lens. As I noted in another thread, unfortunately, this tenant of anti-racism itself is racist (usings its own definition). Not because of "reverse-racism", but simply because once things are cast as beneficial to minority groups, their support amongst the general population reduces. In essence the most effective way to reduce discrimination is to discriminate, but w/o intent.