• JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    You’re not helping the individuals who were discriminated on in the past, you’re favouring an individual who has no specific connection to other members or the discriminated group besides their shared characteristic, and did not choose to be a part of that group.

    • TheFriar@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      …exactly. They did not choose to be a part of a minority group, but that fact means they have almost certainly been discriminated against in the past—their ancestors most definitely have, meaning less generational wealth and a diminished starter point due to centuries of racial oppression. If you’re born middle class, or upper class, there is a greater likelihood for opportunity and upward mobility. That drastically decreases the poorer you are, and minority groups are disproportionately represented in the lower classes…again, due to a long history of racial discrimination.

      Trying to right that trend has to start with the current generation, and that generation is made up of individuals, whether you think they deserve to be the first in line to receive the benefits of balancing the scales or not.

      It has to start somewhere.

      • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        In some instances you’re right, and that’s a different matter. In many others though the current individual is not disadvantaged because of their status as belonging to a minority group.