> So what if someone is giving special opportunities to someone based on their skin color, or their gender? There are plenty of special opportunities to go around for all of us.

I think this was the stance of the segregationists in the Jim Crow South. They called it “separate but equal”

“So what if someone is getting to drink from a certain water fountain based on their skin color, or their gender? There are plenty of water fountains to go around for all of us.”

I find both statements morally reprehensible.

> So what if someone is giving special opportunities to someone based on their skin color, or their gender?

Because it’s racist.

Say there was a disease that predominantly affected a given race. Would you then object to a health system producing a tailored response to that group based on group characteristics?

e.g. https://www.gaucherdisease.org/blog/5-common-ashkenazi-genet...

Of course not, if race was proven to be the actual underlying factor. The point in the OP was that the underlying cause is not race, but other group traits (low socio-economic status, poor family background) - which people of all races can and do possess.

I'm not replying to that.

These diseases are based on genetic differences, and the tailored treatments are based on genetic differences. Are you really implying that there are genetic differences between the races that cause differences? I find that pretty racist.

That's my point. To talk about differences isn't racist. It's how they are used to keep power structures in place that is. Your definition is IMO not helpful in any way. If racism were so simple to define then as people we wouldn't have had any problems eradicating it, would we?

No. Racism in its broadest, widely-accepted usage, refers to the treatment of people based on the belief that one race is superior to another. This program, as far as I can tell, makes no claims about any race being superior to another race.

Here’s a thought experiment:

A black man and an Asian man rob a bank together. They are caught, charged, and found guilty of the same crime.

The black man is set free because his race is over-represented at the local jail, but the Asian man serves 8 years in prison.

Because nobody is saying someone is superior to another person here, the above example is not racist and totally fine, in your definition of racism. Even though it is obviously deeply unethical and unfair.

That thought experiment does not reflect any realities of the real world that we are discussing, so I don’t find it particularly interesting. The analogous situation would be if judges systematically sentence Black men to twice the jail time for that crime as Asian men, and someone proposed correcting that disparity by cutting the Black man’s sentence in half (so that it would match the Asian man’s sentence). I would support that.

>There are plenty of special opportunities to go around for all of us.

By definition this isn't true.

That was such a lovely reply, I already agree with your viewpoint but this has given me a new way of looking at things. Thank you.

I hear you. But so what if it’s inconsistent? Why does it matter?

It’s a bit like criticizing SpaceX for spending so much money going into space when that money could be used here at home, to solve real problems.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like the root cause of the frustration here is what you pointed out: Right now you can create a girls-only club, but not a boys-only club. But the truth seems to be that you can create a boys-only club, and people do. They just don’t call it that.

If the objection is that you can’t openly do that without being criticized, then that’s valid too. But that’s how people feel right now. It’s not possible to say “Well, you should feel differently.” Or at least not effective.

If an initiative is helpful, why not let them? After all, we don’t know if this will help.

But it is done to white people, and in huge proportions. White people are much more likely to be hired than black people given the same resume. See other comments for more details.

But its a known and well studied fact that people of color are discriminated against in all areas of life, what this means that white people experience special advantage in all areas of life - so all the other startup funds are for white people (especially men) ahead of people of color.

This is precisely how you achieve consistency, by adjusting for well-established differences in how different groups of people are treated. How else would you suggest achieving consistency, given that the status quo is not consistent? Surely by definition you need to depart from the status quo.