• @feedum_sneedson
    link
    6
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    That would be socioeconomic class more than race, and I completely agree. In fact, race doesn’t have anything to do with it, other than the historical facts of America meaning there’s a racial skew to poverty. Targeting poverty ("wealth privilege) would therefore disproportionately benefit African-Americans, without needlessly excluding the poor from other demographics and continuing to perpetuate the idea that skin colour is somehow the most important thing about people.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      In a system where inherent racism didn’t exist that would work, are you assuming that the current system wouldn’t disproportionately skew the beneficiaries to the existing racial bias for some reason ?

      That just gives you the same problem, a step down in the chain.

      Systemic racism doesn’t start once you hit a threshold of income, targeting the poor will still skew towards whatever biases exist in the system.

      disproportionately benefit African-Americans

      Either you don’t understand why African-Americans would need additional help or you are framing it that way on purpose.

      By what metric are you getting “disproportionate” ?

      continuing to perpetuate the idea that skin colour is somehow the most important thing about people

      It sounds like systemic racism is over so we can all just go back to seeing everyone as equals. /s

      Again, either you have a fundamental misunderstanding or are purposely framing it that way.

      To be clear, these measures aren’t “skin color is most important so let’s base policy on that aspect”

      they are closer to

      “The system is actively using skin colour and ethnicity to detrimentally target people who should really be equal in standing, let’s not pretend that that isn’t happening and try to address it”