> so you reject the claim that systemic racism had any effect that can be meaningfully attributed
I claimed that it's not the sole contributor. I don't think we have laws anymore that target one group over another. There are some that disproportionally impact certain groups, but that's my entire point. You can't look at the end result.
> genetic inferiority
I'm not very interested in genetic differences among groups, because I reject the whole "groups" thing all together. So why would I talk about it? But I guess if you do look at groups, cultural similarities are more obvious than genetic differences. And those are driving most of the differences IMO
> what was the Civil Rights movement about, exactly? What does "Colored" mean in this sign?
Correct, it was equally wrong to group people based on "Colored" back then as it is now. I'll also add that back then there was a lot less immigration so the group made slightly more sense (uniform), but it was still wrong.
so now that jim crow is over, redlining is over, and legalized discrmination is...."over", so to speak, generation upon generation of Black people (the people who were referred to as "colored" in that photo) have been denied generational wealth and prosperity, we now deem that whatever problems the Black community has, are disconnected from any of that. Impossible to pin down factors like "group preference" are why Black communities continue to be so segregated, why the community has a dramatically higher rate of incarceration, poorer academic outcomes, poorer health outcomes...we can never know how much 400 years of institutional oppression had to do with that vs. simple "group preference". Attempts to observe any of these factors as potential causes are deemed as "Wokeness" and giant multinational corporations are run by zealots who seek to eradicate any such "wokeness" who are also cheered on by Hacker News readers similarly tired of this bothersome "wokeness". 400 years of institutional oppression simply can't be separated from random group preference, and that's why it should be illegal to even question this conundrum.
I claimed that it's not the sole contributor. I don't think we have laws anymore that target one group over another. There are some that disproportionally impact certain groups, but that's my entire point. You can't look at the end result.
> genetic inferiority
I'm not very interested in genetic differences among groups, because I reject the whole "groups" thing all together. So why would I talk about it? But I guess if you do look at groups, cultural similarities are more obvious than genetic differences. And those are driving most of the differences IMO
> what was the Civil Rights movement about, exactly? What does "Colored" mean in this sign?
Correct, it was equally wrong to group people based on "Colored" back then as it is now. I'll also add that back then there was a lot less immigration so the group made slightly more sense (uniform), but it was still wrong.