Must suck to be white in Florida right now - EQUITY based relief

So you believe Harris was being racist toward people of color?

 

Your point wasn't proven, it was refuted. You asked when Republicans ever proposed civil rights legislation, and I pointed to several. I see you completely ignored the civil right protected by the 2nd Amendment. Why is that? Some civil rights don't count?

 

let me rephrase it then how about human rights, self defense is a natural god given right and i acknowledged the liberal form of early republicans, and also their swerve to more business oriented in more modern times have a good day!

 

Institutional racism is when government distributes resources in ways that discriminates against individuals based on race. If you take what Kamala Harris was saying, in context, she believes non-white people are more effected by hurricanes and our relief efforts should prioritize or have a goal of focusing on non-white individuals because white people have had previous advantages and therefore need less attention.

The correct thing to say would have been that we are working hard to provide relief and resources to everyone in need. Please reach out to x, y, and z if you need assistance. But, she didn't say that. She said non-white people start behind white people so we need to make sure resources target them.

 

Nope, that's discrimination.

 

So you believe she was discriminating against people of color because she basically said more of them are poor?

 

I am unsure if the OP is a conservative. Maybe they are white. Unsure. But it's not conservative--at least not yet--to think that racism against white people is wrong. And I find it odd that white people supposedly have white privilege, yet can be clearly discriminated against, even by government, and when whites react to the racist discrimination, it's referred to as "whining."

 

How is it racist to refer to the Kamala Harris as a racist ho?

 

White privilege of hurricane relief funds:

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna53975563

Turns out that whites were much more likely to not be rejected for resettlement aid than black households after Sandy. When all is said and done, the same will be the case after Ian, despite the whining of the Trumpers that they are getting the short stick. It's nothing new.

 

Institutionalized racism is by definition a form of discrimination regardless of the race that benefits. It's just discrimination you apparently support depending on the recipient.

 

Is this a serious question? I'm trying to figure out if I should correct you or laugh and give a snarky response.

 

Exactly my point. Equity is thus NOT bias-free.

Building hills in the field to advantage one group (but not others) is the very essence of bias.

 

That doesn't exist according to you guys.

 

The irony of that meme, in light of the vile paternalism of the Progressive, is off the freaking charts.

 

Then its NOT EQUITY, how hard is this to understand.

 

There's a huge amount of acting out going on, now that they've been found out.

The upside being that at least some of them have the intelligence and decency to recognise it .. though it'll probably take a while to process it through to remorse. The lashing out is going to be shrill for a while, I think.

 

Dude, YOU posted a definition of equity .. and it was defined as BIAS FREE.

Are you on drugs? Short term memory issues?

 

You said:Equity is thus NOT bias-free. YES IT IS.

 

You're losing it, CB.

You're the one who posts pics of people being given boxes to stand on etc (as in NOT a level playing field), and talks about giving advantage to one group over other groups. That is equity in practice.

And it's BLINDINGLY OBVIOUSLY NOT BIAS FREE.

Only the level playing field is bias free.

 

EQUALITY is bias free

EQUITY is pure bias

 

Definition of equity

1a: justice according to natural law or right specifically : freedom from bias or favoritism

 

This is what YOU posted.

On the left is a 'level playing field'.

On the right is a playing field upon which advantage (aka BIAS) has been given to one, and completely removed from another. It does not meet the definition you provided, in any way.

 

Sorry no bias. Different people need different amounts of aid.

 

What you just said IS bias

"different people"

How are you oblivious to this? Is it simply that you've literally never thought about it?

 

Says who? About which people? At which point in time? How are they in that need? When are they in need?

It's an absurd premise. No Govt can address this without engaging in immense bias, because they cannot operate at the same level as a family (only within the context of a family/tribe can individual needs be identified with trust). The very best a Govt can do is take a wild guess, and accept that doing so is going to be discriminatory to a degree of damage greater than had they done nothing.