[ziaddotcom]

Yes it is illegal to block someone from a coffee shop based on their race.

When we say "Black Church" in America, we don't mean a church for Blacks only, we mean churches that historically arose because other races would not allow Blacks in their congregation (be it illegal to discriminate or not). There is no connotation that a "Black Church" wants to exclude other races.

[Grustaf]

I’m not sure what “black churches” have to do with this but I am still curious where the legal limits are.

[ziaddotcom]

The legal limits of what? Market segmentation relative to race in a retail environment?

[Grustaf]

Under what circumstances it is legal to racially discriminate. It seems to be legal in college admissions and funding allocation, but not if it’s about denying service in e.g. restaurants.

So the line is drawn somewhere between those two, I just wonder where.

[ziaddotcom]

You say that like it is going to be written once and for all with an instruction manual. America uses a common law system and case precedent over time.

You seem rather concerned with college admissions, where is your concern for the fact that many if not most elite public American high schools would be out of reach for racial minorities even if their child has has perfect grades since Kindergarden. These kids can't simply 'apply' to whichever high school in the country they please.

In Europe it is illegal to label a wine Champagne if the grape is the wrong color or not grown in a particular bespoke part of France. Yet, you are baffled the line for racial equity in America is somewhat gray, absurd.

[Grustaf]

No, I'm not baffled about it being ill defined, I presumed there were specific criteria stated somewhere. I was baffled that it's legal at all, under any circumstances.

I do not for the record think it is strange that only wine made in Champagne can be called Champagne. What could be offensive about that?

I talk about college admission because that's where discrimination seems to be legal.

> out of reach for racial minorities even if their child has has perfect grades since Kindergarden

As we know, when applying to college their race is actually an advantage, so why would they not be admitted, given their perfect grades?

I think there should be systems in place to help all disadvantaged people, regardless of race.

Since there are some black kids with wealthy parents, and many white kids with poor parents, it seems obvious that race is a very unfair basis, why not simply assist people that need assistance without looking at their skin colour?

[zacmcloud]

They won't answer this question straight because it exposes the hypocrisy in identity politics. Recently one of the major colleges in the US released new admissions guidelines that are more vague than before and specifically designed to reduce the asian percentages being admissions. It seems the jokes about Asians being better in school are true, and this university wanted more "diversity" so it made the requirements more difficult for Asians (and to a lesser extent whites) while making it easier for the targeted ethnicities (I only remember "black" but I believe it included more than just that).

For some reason the US has it in it's head that we can balance the scales by putting our thumbs on one group and lowering the bar for others. Weirdly they don't see the hypocrisy or outright foolishness behind "fixing" racism with more racism.

Of course, like all things like this it has almost no effect on the ultra rich and truely privileged, and will negatively effect the underprivileged "whites" of all races (weirdly, just like every other race, white people are not just some big homogenous color but makeup diverse individual cultures with distinctive history).

But I guess those privileged trailer trash should use their privilege to buy themselves access to an ivy league education.

Honestly Apple's little PR stunt is the least insulting of this stuff recently. If you want to see really stupid, look at reddits CEO stepping down and saying his job will go to a black person (and it did). That is illegal but it was just ignored. Or the incoming US president who said he VP pick would be a "woman of color". Of course I'm sure someone will defend picking VPs based on their genetics and chromosome amounts by saying "we already pick that way anyway, its why its all white men in politics!". Because clearly you fix something by propagating it.

The world is so upside down now that suggesting we be colorblind is racist.

[ziaddotcom]

Using words in a non racial way will not automatically deploy egalitarianism and meritocracy throughout the universe.

[ziaddotcom]

Allow me to steelman Grustaf's position as I understand it relative to zacmcloud who seems to think Grustaf shares roughly the same view as theirs. Grustaf is the type of person who would not refer to anyone as "trailer trash" even in jest or to quote someone, because Grustaf is of of the opinion that they act and are colorblind, and has behaved in such a way even in the thread by using colorblind language not to sanitize their speech, but because their use of language attempts to practice what it preaches. Grustaf would argue something like that if we seek an equitable and just society in America, [Grustaf self identified as European, giving no indication of race] then America should emulate Europe where such equity, equality, and social programs should be administered on the basis of economic need and the laws and orgs should not resort to racial language and framing altogether, because it should be based on economic or human needs that should be readily apparent with no need to poll or take into account skin color.

To steelman Grustaf further, I suppose Grustaf doesn't see an irony that dark skinned grapes aren't even allowed to be called Champagne, because Grustaf would say that grapes are not people, and that sparkling red wine made in Champagne tastes entirely different, but were it to taste the same, then the red Champagne and the white Champagne would almost certainly be given equal shelfspace and cost roughly the same if made by the same winery. Grustaf would on the other hand say that human beings transcend such issues, and certainly any person of any color can be and achieve and have the same intelligence and thoughts as any other so long as they are given equal opportunity. Grustaf believes that what Apple has done here is erode the principle of equal opportunity in attempt to try to provide equal opportunity.

I tend to think Grustaf might still think that if they were an American living in the country, but based on what Grustaf has said, they would be equally shocked at how not universal our basic social services are, even to elites. Grustaf would say "All men are created equal" should be made true in America so much so that racial language need no longer apply.

I just happen to find that either naive, or not pragmatic enough given the state of America in 2020. I can give Grustaf the benefit of the doubt, to a degree, because they admit to not being an American and seem to imply they don't live in America. It is easy to see how they do not have a full picture, and they admitted to as such.

I happen to feel that Apple's move is their best intentioned pragmatism to take a stand for something.

Zacmcloud on the other hand seems to have no such positions as above, and calls people "trailer trash" in jest. If zacmcloud is referring to me as the type of person who thinks any Whites are "trailer trash" let me correct the record. If working class Whites in Appalachia or Detroit were given access to an elite education through social programs, I'd be all for it, and presumably so would Grustaf. We just disagree that racial language in such initiatives kills the intiatives altogether. One reason being is American descendants of slaves aren't given popularized names for their heritage like Appalachia, and such terms typically exclude such people implicitly or explicitly in their definition, and often not by the people who coin the terms, but by the people who apply them. In my view, Grustaf's position is untenable in America at this time in the same way that if MLK's I have a dream speach would have been unintelligible had he not kept the words Black and White in.

"I have a dream that one day little black boys and girls will be holding hands with little white boys and girls." MLK

Someone maybe believe MLK could have said "of all races" and accomplished the same thing. To that position I say, then why wasn't "All men are created equal" sufficient to address slavery, much less racial inequality in America.

Addressing such issues will take time and ideas, and even when race has been transcended, I think it is a fair bet that class will not have been. And by the way, MLK spoke about that increasingly towards his later years, and soon after he was assassinated.