Yes but YOU did it in that example. Personal responsibility. Good.
But why should a person of one race be punished (or favored) for something somebody ELSE of their race (or insert other group here) did?
So you think racism still exists, but you can't bring yourself to realise that means they're still actively keeping people down, and helping those people doesn't count as punishing YOU.
And you also seem to have a real problem with going from personal examples to examples of society as a whole.
But hey, if you can just have racists be forced to affirmative action hire people, i'm sure most people wouldn't mind... let me know how you plan on making sure that's applied right...
"There's a specific threat against these people because of their race, so we'll offer extra protection during that threat" is how I'd look at that.
So you do agree that there are circumstances in which we're allowed to treat races differently.
And, in one of your previous posts (responding to someone else) you also agreed that racism still exists.
But you don't seem to make the connection between those two, and realise that you should agree with protecting people during the threat from racism that limits their options.
And, like the national guard thing, the whole idea is to provide protection until people get used to it enough that it's no longer necessary.
Unfortunately your advocacy above APPENDS to that "But since we protected the white people before, we'll let THEM go off and get lynched now, even generations later, for people that didn't actually participate (and possibly were not alive) when it originally happened."
As i told Gas, that's BS, it's not about favouring one race in perpetuity.
It's about attempting to equalise things.
And i've already told you a few times that you're quite free to complain about the methods being inadequate, as long as you recognize that attempting it isn't bad itself.
As i told Gas:
You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs! Perfect is the enemy of good! and all that.
who judges the magnitude of the disadvantage, and apportions the size of the slice? And once that gate is open, what's to stop another politician in 10 years from saying "Welp, they're still disadvantaged, so obviously the first round of reparations weren't enough, so here come some more" and doing it again? And again?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
As for judging the appropriate amount, maybe when they stop calling the cops on black politicians going door to door, campaigning, you could look at the progress being made to see if you can stop.
I would LOVE for the system Ash describes to be put into place, where all names and ethnicities are stricken from the application process and there is no interview. I would absolutely LOVE that - where the only criteria for hiring is capability. I'm just pointing out that those who argue for Affirmative Action have asserted that such a system would still discriminate against minorities.
Well, it would if they can't get the same experience and education as the majority.
But you can
(slowly) fix that through social programs for kids... which you're also against...
