I think the critical difference is that a gut reno to eliminate the actual source of low IQ is significantly more feasible than swiftly eradicating most of the other issues that contribute to oppression. Identifying low-hanging fruit is a good quick win, so long as it doesn't weaken broader efforts.

I think everybody agrees that we should get rid of unnecessary environmental sources of lead as rapidly as we can. But it's not all that cheap[1], and there's probably a correlation between not owning the place you leave (i.e., not being entitled to massive renovations) and being a member of an oppressed group.

Even as a financially secure white tenant, I have found my landlords to be extremely hesitant to initiate any testing that might legally obligate them to renovate (or at least cover/shield) sources of lead. And in most municipalities, your landlord is only obligated to follow up on lead concerns if they have personal knowledge of lead paint usage on the property; they're not obligated to go through the property's history and refute the possibility of lead.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_abatement_in_the_United_S...

Sure, I'm all for quick wins; get lead outta houses, I'm all on board, but we also shouldn't forget the circumstances that caused black people to disproportionately be in lead-filled houses (presumably mostly economic).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that lead poisoning is a symptom of a bigger issue. It's perfectly fine (and encouraged) to treat the symptoms, but I feel like the comment was replying to was acting like we shouldn't attribute things like this to systemic oppression.