Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can't expect to play a game, give one team an advantage for the first half, give neither team an advantage in the second half, and call it a fair game at the end. The game you are referring to is one in which you presuppose dividing people into ‘teams’. I.e. you are simply assuming that racism is forever and that the only fairness comes dividing people by race and then balancing resources according to racial gr…
> The game you are referring to is one in which you presuppose dividing people into ‘teams’. No, you're arguing against an artifact the analogy instead of acting in good faith to understand the meaning. Consider a game where all players are independent, but the "referee" arbitrarily chose half of the players to get an advantage. Let that be team 1, and everyone else be team 2. We got a new referee in the 2nd half, an…
That is the basis of racism.
We can accept that a game like this was played, stop playing it, and work to undo the damage without continuing to play the game.
>> A non-racist solution is to support anyone who has been less advantaged in wealth building.
> So socialism, totally agree, in general that is the direction we should move back towards.
No, I don’t view socialism favorably and it’s not implied. Creating institutions or programs that facilitate higher levels of economic participation by those who start with less does not imply socialism.