systemic racism…

@vivify said
https://www.ohsu.edu/center-for-diversity-inclusion

"Center for Diversity and Inclusion".

Says it right there on the site. They want a diverse group to be involved and they want to promote inclusion, which obviously means everyone.

You and Sleepy Guy are batting zero here.

OK they shoe-horned in some white gay people, fine.

Did you ignore the second link? Here's the title:

Coronavirus relief fund in Oregon meant to help Black-owned businesses exclusively

Here's the link:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/blacks-only-covid-relief-fund-businesses

It's blatantly racist and unconstitutional, but they do it anyway.

@vivify said
https://www.ohsu.edu/center-for-diversity-inclusion

"Center for Diversity and Inclusion".

Says it right there on the site. They want a diverse group to be involved and they want to promote inclusion, which obviously means everyone.

You and Sleepy Guy are batting zero here.

libs have a habit of calling things just the opposite of what they are...the AFFORDABLE care act, where most people payed MORE...does that ring a bell?

@sleepyguy said
OK they shoe-horned in some white gay people, fine.

Did you ignore the second link? Here's the title:

Coronavirus relief fund in Oregon meant to help Black-owned businesses exclusively

Here's the link:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/blacks-only-covid-relief-fund-businesses

It's blatantly racist and unconstitutional, but they do it anyway.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/state-legislator-demographics.aspx

When that Fox News article was written, 84 percent of the legislators in Oregon were white. Guess how many were black? ONE. I don't mean one percent; I mean just one lone legislator was black.

So how is a law made to help black businesses, passed by an overwhelmingly white government with only one black representative "racist"? Can you explain that? Only 2.2% of the population is black (86 percent white); did they fear the wrath of black voters?

Are whites just just trying to oppress themselves?

Your arguments are stupid.

@mott-the-hoople said
libs have a habit of calling things just the opposite of what they are...the AFFORDABLE care act, where most people payed MORE...does that ring a bell?

Or Bush's Patriot Act that allowed the government to spy on or physically search Americans in secret without probable cause...the exact opposite of a "Patriot".

@mott-the-hoople said
libs have a habit of calling things just the opposite of what they are...the AFFORDABLE care act, where most people payed MORE...does that ring a bell?

Yes, likewise with "economic justice" or "racial justice". The qualifiers reverse the meaning of the word "justice", and substitute collective guilt for individual accountability.

Let's say two people have a dispute and take it to court. If you seek justice then you find out who wronged who and do what is right. If you seek "racial justice" then the black person wins over the white person. If you seek "economic justice" then the poor person wins over the rich. Judges who enforce rulings based on this crap are engaged in systemic racism.

@vivify said
https://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/state-legislator-demographics.aspx

When that Fox News article was written, 84 percent of the legislators in Oregon were white. Guess how many were black? ONE. I don't mean one percent; I mean just one lone legislator was black.

So how is a law made to help black businesses, passed by an overwhelmingly white gover ...[text shortened]... black voters?

Are whites just just trying to oppress themselves?

Your arguments are stupid.

It is racist because a white owned business that may be equally in need and deserving of such government aid will be denied it simply because the owners are white.

Is it your position that a white owned business can't be equally in need or deserving of government aid as a black owned business? Can you even think in terms of individual rights?

@vivify said
Or Bush's Patriot Act that allowed the government to spy on or physically search Americans in secret without probable cause...the exact opposite of a "Patriot".

I absolutely agree with you there.

@sleepyguy said
It is racist because a white owned business that may be equally in need and deserving of such government aid will be denied it simply because the owners are white.

Is it your position that a white owned business can't be equally in need or deserving of government aid as a black owned business? Can you even think in terms of individual rights?

Minority businesses have unique problems that white businesses don't usually have such as systemic or social inequality and discrimination. If all things were completely equal, you'd have a point; they're not. Your failure to realize this is the problem.

Furthermore, that Fox News article may not even be correct. The Oregon state website lays out the criteria for the CARES grant and race is not mentioned anywhere:

https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bhr/80803

Seems like Fox News (shocker) was wrong.

@vivify said
Minority businesses have unique problems that white businesses don't usually have such as systemic or social inequality and discrimination. If all things were completely equal, you'd have a point; they're not. Your failure to realize this is the problem.

Furthermore, that Fox News article may not even be correct. The Oregon state website lays out the criteria for the CAR ...[text shortened]... ed anywhere:

https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bhr/80803

Seems like Fox News (shocker) was wrong.

Apparently you actually can't think in terms of individual rights. THAT is the problem. You switched right back to thinking about about desired outcomes for groups.

"Minority businesses" (plural), and "white businesses" (plural) blah blah...

You want government to effectuate "completely equal" outcomes among racial groups. I want the government to be colorblind, treating ALL INDIVIDUALS completely equally under the law regardless of race. My way is just. Yours is not.

As for the article and the CARES act, if race wasn't a criteria then the lawsuits wouldn't have been necessary:

https://theportlandmedium.com/local-news/hispanic-and-white-business-owners-settle-with-oregon-over-funds-directed-towards-blacks/

@mott-the-hoople said
libs have a habit of calling things just the opposite of what they are...the AFFORDABLE care act, where most people payed MORE...does that ring a bell?

They can afford it.

@sleepyguy said
Apparently you actually can't think in terms of individual rights. THAT is the problem. You switched right back to thinking about about desired outcomes for groups.

Individual rights *are* affected when they are part of a discriminated group. Duh.

As for the article and the CARES act, if race wasn't a criteria then the lawsuits wouldn't have been necessary:

https://theportlandmedium.com/local-news/hispanic-and-white-business-owners-settle-with-oregon-over-funds-directed-towards-blacks/

From your link:

"There is a long history in Oregon of Blacks being displaced, denied jobs, and were the victims of exclusion laws. There is concrete evidence that Blacks are in a special position to receive economic aid due to Oregon’s racist and exclusionary past."

And that's from your own source.

Whether or not you agree or disagree with helping a specific group of disadvantaged people, you can't claim doing so is motivated by racism. Claiming that a majority trying to help a minority that it oppressed is "systemic racism" is the height of stupidity.

@vivify said
https://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/state-legislator-demographics.aspx

When that Fox News article was written, 84 percent of the legislators in Oregon were white. Guess how many were black? ONE. I don't mean one percent; I mean just one lone legislator was black.

So how is a law made to help black businesses, passed by an overwhelmingly white gover ...[text shortened]... black voters?

Are whites just just trying to oppress themselves?

Your arguments are stupid.

I think the person with the best qualifications should win. You see it as skin color…now who is the racist?

@vivify said
Individual rights *are* affected when they are part of a discriminated group. Duh.

As for the article and the CARES act, if race wasn't a criteria then the lawsuits wouldn't have been necessary:

https://theportlandmedium.com/local-news/hispanic-and-white-business-owners-settle-with-oregon-over-funds-directed-towards-blacks/

From your link:

"[i]There is a ...[text shortened]... ajority trying to help a minority that it oppressed is "systemic racism" is the height of stupidity.

Again with the groups.

You just can't get there.

@sleepyguy said
Again with the groups.

You just can't get there.

Individuals suffering discrimination because of the group they belong to is just reality; a place you've never been to.

@sleepyguy said
OK they shoe-horned in some white gay people, fine.

Did you ignore the second link? Here's the title:

Coronavirus relief fund in Oregon meant to help Black-owned businesses exclusively

Here's the link:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/blacks-only-covid-relief-fund-businesses

It's blatantly racist and unconstitutional, but they do it anyway.

Was the Freedman's Bureau "racist and unconstitutional"?

Right wingers are either pretending not to know what "racist" means or they truly are ignorant. A racist believes that one "race" is innately superior or inferior to another "race" or "races" not that members of certain "races" suffer from more invidious discrimination than members of other "races". The first belief is nonsense, the second belief is objectively true.