[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.

[yucky]

     > Did you read the book?

Yes.

    > I don't believe "racial discrimination is necessary" is one of them.

Did you read the book?

Racial equity (as opposed to racial equality) by definition requires racial discrimination. There is no other way to achieve the "desired" equitable outcomes other than racial preferences. It's a point acknowledged in Kendi's work along with every other "antiracist" author of note.

[ModernMech]

> Did you read the book?

Yes, and I did not get your interpretation at all. Considering the fact that in our discussion you've misrepresented a quote from Kendi, and built strawmen to argue points never made by Kendi or myself (to the point you couldn't even recognize my argument, instead favoring to argue against the strawman you've built), I'm wondering if you haven't strawmanned the entire book.

In a previous post I asked you to substantiate your argument with quotes from the book, but you haven't. If you don't want to substantiate your argument I think we're done here.

> Racial equity (as opposed to racial equality) by definition requires racial discrimination.

This idea is unrecognizable to me. It seems more like a caricature of what progressives and anti-racists believe than what they actually believe (which is a common thread that unifies your posts). If we want to try at a definition, here's one as good as any:

"Racial equity is a process of eliminating racial disparities and improving outcomes for everyone."

https://www.raceforward.org/about/what-is-racial-equity-key-...

Here's another one:

"Racial equity is achieved when race no longer factors into or determines one’s socioeconomic outcomes. It is when everyone has what they need to thrive, no matter where they live or how they identify."

https://unitedwaynca.org/blog/what-is-racial-equity-definiti...

So we have a definition for racial equity used by a notable antiracist org (united way) that explicitly says racial equity is achieved in through an absence of racial discrimination, not through it.

Again, bring some quotes or some other source to support your position and we can have a discussion.

> There is no other way to achieve the "desired" equitable outcomes other than racial preferences.

You also insisted that the only way to determine someone's race is to use a color chart (and also your view of race is very narrow -- it's not about skin tone), so I think your imagination is lacking. In fact if you actually listen to anti-racists (which is distinct from pretending to listen and then putting the words in their mouths you wish they had said), you'd hear that equity is achieved through anti-racism, which is not just reflected racism as you are claiming.

[yucky]

   > "Racial equity is a process of eliminating racial disparities and improving outcomes for everyone."

Uh huh. Now show us how you change racial disparities without using racial preferences/discrimination. By definition, it's not possible. Policies have to consider race first and tilt scales in order to achieve these objectives.

I'd encourage you to try and find some actual examples that run counter to this, and see for yourself.