[dreamfactor]

> Have you ever considered the option that your black friends was wrong?

Yes of course, it was the first thing I thought and I held onto that. If both parties were on equal ground you would be quite right and there would be equivalence so you could just flip the roles, but they aren't. Middle class white men have greater opportunities in society. Racism and sexism are oppressive by definition, and redressing inequality of opportunity isn't oppression.

And btw talking about institutional racism is the opposite of an emotive argument. It's a more precise way to highlight that the issue is systemic and not the result of individuals being deliberately racist.

[tomp]

> Middle class

That's the key word, not "white" or "men". I fully support redressing inequality of opportunity... as long as it's not sexist or racist.

[DanBC]

But black people are more disadvantaged than white people, so obviously any programme aimed at reducing inequality will have more focus on black people.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2017/01...

[tomp]

That's fine. I'm in strong support of any such program, as long as skin color is not an explicit factor. Such program won't be unfair (e.g. Obama's daughter won't benefit from it, but the poor straight white orphaned guy from the worst neighborhood will), and automatically self-adjusting (at the beginning it will be disproportionately aimed at black people, but eventually - if the programme succeeds - the representation of its beneficiaries will tend to reflect the wider society).

Edit: in other words, if you want to help poor people, help poor people. If you want to help black people, help black people, but don't pretend you're helping poor people, and don't be surprised when you're called racist (like white supremacists, who help white people) or when you receive backlash from non-black people.