Racism definition: "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others."
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
You know there's multiple definitions even if you restrict yourself to a single dictionary, don't you? Oxford's definition will change between 1950 and 2020, after all it is an obvious target for--not exactly infiltrating, that's too strong a word--but yeah, it is subject to change.
Dictionaries are political speech. Spanish ones under Franco didn't have the words "huelga" or "sindicato" which mean "strike" or "union."
This is racial discrimination for the Right Reasons, apparently. As long as everyone agrees on when we can and cannot discriminate by race, it should go very well.
I'm not convinced that our society has had that wider debate. I myself am not convinced that these "Right Reasons" are good and fair, even if they are so widespread.
There certainly are good reasons to discriminate based on race, this just happens to be one where there’s a wide variety of opinions about whether the reasons are just.
I'll be straight - the only reason I can think of to discriminate based on race is for medical reasons - and that is by their doctor to diagnose specific illnesses. Can you give some more good reasons?
I think you’re on the right track. I replied to a sibling comment with some other good reasons for discriminating based on race. Basically, race is a pretty good shorthand for a shared experience of a group, and there are genuine instances where that shared experience can be leveraged to do good things.
Discrimination is absolutely never the answer. Inequality is a hard problem to solve but that doesn’t mean we should take the lazy route and embed discrimination into all areas of life.
You cannot solve discrimination with discrimination. Democrats have been trying the lazy route for 40 years with no progress. Perhaps we would have been better off trying to solve the root causes instead of uselessly chasing quick fixes?
Discrimination itself is not something that needs to be “solved.” Unjust discrimination, yes, for example instances where that discrimination actively harms, as first or second order effect, without sufficient remedy. But there are quite a few instances where discrimination is warranted, and just. For example, when recruiting for medical studies where the disease being studied is common in one race but not another; in acting, where the character being portrayed is of a particular race and that characteristic is essential to encoding that character’s motivations; in certain public interaction roles like therapy, community organizing, policing or public health outreach, where the target demographic is a traditionally underserved minority. The there are situations where the selection of an individual puts no others at any disadvantage, such as the selection of a Supreme Court judge. In those situations, there is neither justice nor injustice in racial discrimination: it is simply a matter of what set of experiences the President wishes to see on the bench.
All races of people are equal in there inherent value as individuals, but they are not equal in their experiences, situations, or needs. To deny the common experience of racial groups in order to optimize for “discrimination” is naive. Discrimination is not inherently unjust, it is a consequence of a universe which has finite resources in time, money, attention, and power.
But tl;dr-- after a segment I want to keep, I switch my background to solid green; after a segment I want to drop, solid red. (Segment == clip between two solid red or green backgrounds)
This doesn't excuse Apple's poor design, but I highly recommend Keyboard Maestro to solve this problem for you. You can assign keyboard shortcuts to actions in specific programs (and much, much more) ... super useful program.
Is the goal of society to improve itself or to spiral into unsustainable state sponsored welfare? A six-figure income was arbitrary definition of an individual who is contributing above the means back to society. Redefine that number as you wish.
"Banks didn’t verify borrowers’ occupations or incomes. They qualified people for bigger loans than they could afford. They offered loans with monthly payments so low that borrowers owed more after they made a payment, rather than less."
This is part of the problem though. Banks and other lenders should be held responsible for handing out these loans. The onus cannot just be on the homeowners. For every person that simply wanted nicer stuff there are plenty who were fooled into thinking they could afford something that they couldn't.
Yes, but my point is the majority of people I knew weren't "fooled" or "uneducated", they took it because it was what they wanted in spite of the danger and warnings. Banks certainly have a ton of responsibility for this, but I'm also not swayed but the slow-fade sob stories that people were "taken advantage of" by the banks either.
No, it isn't "by definition racist"