By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
JuliusHackebeil on 21 June 2025
Edit Thread
sundin13 said:
JuliusHackebeil said:

I think racism is not dead yet, because it is kept on life support by people who would benefit from it. Grifters telling white people for a hefty price how racist they are. And for black people who want to use the false victim narrative as a shield against criticism, work, accountability and reason (e.g. BLM)

I am on the internet a fair bit, often looking at contentious social and political topics, including race relations in different countries. I almost never see racism, apart from some idiot colledge kids, woke professors, protesters, professional victims and ideologically captured news outlets. I get that this is not nothing, but if you account for the mentally disturbed and for people who do not need to work or even produce results or proof to stay in their position, I would say the rest, that is the big silent majority, is quite well adjusted.
Additionally I suspect that for every comment on the internet that was actually racist, we get a bazillion talking about it, falling over themselves to signal their virtue, and a bazillion more misinterpreting jokes and memes (as mentioned in the op) as racist, to again show how good and anti-racist they are. ... Perhaps a whole lot of this is just plain projection.

And if MLK was for equity, he was on the completely wrong track. Equity is poison to meritocracy and productive society. He should have much rather thought that black people would not need a hand out, that, given how generational wealth actually works (and how few people are actually wealthy to begin with), black people would make it at an equal playing field, because they are no worse than white people.

Equality before the law for all people who were made equal.
Equity for all races beneath that, unable to compete.

Hundreds of years of handouts and federal assistance for white people to help them build wealth, from the Homestead Act to redlining and Levittowns (often which had disastrous consequences for the people left behind), but as soon the federal government could no longer discriminate against minorities, government assistance quickly became just immoral handouts for the lazy. 

How strange...


Meritocracy cannot exist without starting from a place of equality. 

If you misunderstood me and think I am against government help for black people, say, in the USA (or elsewhere), let me clarify: I am not.

I am against government help for black people in the USA (or elsewhere) if that help is contingent on them being black, or minorities, or lgbtq, or whatever the next flavor of the day is gonna be.

More generally to your first paragraph: I never said I was for government hand outs at some point and then suddenly changed my opinion when minorities might have also benefitted from them. What a bad faith reading. It is these quotes and answers that make me think it is effort in vain to talk to you.

I'll quote your second paragraph: "Meritocracy cannot exist without starting from a place of equality." I agree. But equity is not equality. In fact these principles (equity and equality) are mutually exlusive. The moment you argue for one, you will argue against the other. It is either the case that

1) people are treated equally and can expect different outcomes between groups, or

2) that people are treated unequally and can expect simillar outcomes between groups.

To say: I am for equality therefore different races should be treated differently - That is something I cannot intellectually follow.

I recommend Thomas Sowells "Discrimination and Disparities" to combat the detrimental belief that disparities in outcomes between groups must be because of unfair discrimination and an unequal playing field.