Well let's start with not being disproportionally harmed or favored either explicitly or implicitly and if I find that isn't all I mean or isn't quite what I mean I will adjust the definition accordingly
The vagueness and flexibility of that definition tells me you really have no idea what you mean by equality.
And how is a law that forces white people to be paid less than black people not considered disproportionately harmful?
It is the case right now that people of color are paid significantly less than their white counterparts.
So as long as we can find some statistic that averages out numbers across the entire nation that shows a disparate outcome, we can make laws that disproportionately favor one group over another based on skin color, correct?
Why are you so determined to argue that there is no systemic racism that you made yourself sound like a racist in a thread which has zero to do with race?
Please explain democrats marxist like tendencies.
Critical Race Theory is a great example. At least, the practical application of it at a policy level.
Critical race theory is almost never considered in policy creation or application. That is why there is a need of critical race theory to he taught at the college level though it will never be taught in public schools owing mostly to the extremely advanced nature of the course. In other words no one will be given a course in critical race theory that has not already chosen to devote considerable study of race relations in American history.
Why are you so determined to argue that there is no systemic racism that you made yourself sound like a racist in a thread which has zero to do with race?
Clearly there is systematic racism and if your claim is that there is no racism while simultaneously claiming racism against whites who are the privileged class you are being self contradictory and not arguing in good faith.So can we drop it?
14 days later
