[ModernMech]

> American slavery was around 15-20 generations ago

Maybe you missed where I said the last person born into slavery died in living memory.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_last_survivors_of_Am...

But the discussion of slavery kind of misses the larger point; that systemic discrimination was not in fact dismantled in America with the end of chattel slavery. Other systems replaced the intent, and those persisted long past the Civil War, well into recent history to today.

> It's not a strawman though. If you're basing preferential treatment on race, how exactly do you determine that?

No one is holding up color scales to people’s skin, and no one suggested doing so, certainly not me. That’s how your argument is a straw man.

It sounds like you are trying to make a different argument now, and if you want to make that one without building a straw man, please do so.

[yucky]

I gave you the data that shows your claims of generational wealth trickling through to an entire race of people, are false. You haven't addressed that.

You are the one making the argument that we need racial discrimination to right past wrongs. I gave you the reasons that is not only immoral, but unworkable. So if you have some method to make your vision of present & future racial discrimination a net benefit for society, I would like to hear it. Logically it isn't possible, so I'm curious to hear your proposed solution.

[ModernMech]

You supplied three links about how wealthy families lose fortunes over time, I don't think they're really relevant to the discussion. They don't address anything we're talking about here, which is how some groups are systemically held back by building wealth in the first place.

[yucky]

What is the argument for basing policies on race, rather than actual need? Also, how do you verify race?

[ModernMech]

1) You are the only one here arguing about race-based policies. Neither I nor the passage you quoted by Ibram X. Kendi make such an argument (if Kendi makes the argument that racial discrimination is necessary, I don't agree with that. But the passage you quoted isn't making that point). I don't know if he makes that argument elsewhere, but as far as this discussion goes, that's something you're arguing against, not what I'm arguing for. In that sense, this argument of yours is a continuation of your strawman argument from before.

To be clear: not all discrimination is racial discrimination, and you don't need to racially discriminate to fix the effects of racial discrimination. Saying we need discrimination is not the same as saying we need racial discrimination.

2) Although this discussion surrounds race and focuses on rectifying past racial discrimination, we don't have to turn to future racial discrimination to rectify it. The point is that we do have to discriminate, however. I believe even you recognize and admit the need for that, because you suggested as much in your earlier post.

For example, we can recognize the impact racist policies like redlining had on minority communities. We can fix this past discrimination by investing in those areas, which of course involves discrimination. We don't have to decide who gets those dollars based on race, but we are basing who gets those dollars on past racial discrimination.

3) If you want to implement a policy based on race, obviously you can just ask the person what their race is. It's okay to let people self-report sometimes. Or market the program to people who are in the specific community you are targeting and ask for proof of residence. There's lots of things you can do, but literally no one has color swatches or endeavors to implement such practices. That's a strawman.

[yucky]

    > You are the only one here arguing about race-based policies. Neither I nor the passage you quoted by Ibram X. Kendi make such an argument (if Kendi makes the argument that racial discrimination is necessary, I don't agree with that. But the passage you quoted isn't making that point)

He does, and it forms the foundation of the book "How to be an Antiracist" which is where it is made, and the book is one of the most widely cited books from those who support the concept of racial equity (ie racial policy preferences to achieve specific outcomes by skin color). If you don't support racial preferences/discrimination that's good, but it certainly seemed like you were defending it throughout this exchange. And by backing Kendi, you are backing a racist. It's certainly within your rights, I just don't agree with it.

    > If you want to implement a policy based on race, obviously you can just ask the person what their race is. 

Why would we ever want the government to participate in racial discrimination though? We've seen that never ends well and only leads to resentment and divisiveness.

[ModernMech]

> He does, and it forms the foundation of the book "How to be an Antiracist"

Did you read the book? The foundation of the book is right in the title: to fight racism it's not enough to be not racist, one must be antiracist. The book is about defining this term and explaining that premise. The book makes a lot of points, some good, some strained, but I don't believe "racial discrimination is necessary" is one of them. I'd challenge you to find some quotes that support your position. And no, the one you already quoted does not fit the bill.

> And by backing Kendi, you are backing a racist.

Point in fact I was defending a specific point you raised, not "backing" anybody.

> Why would we ever want the government to participate in racial discrimination though?

I wouldn't and you wouldn't, but some people have wanted this in a misguided way.