I don't think it's tokenism. When I was a child living in rural UK, we had no black or brown people living in the area or attending my school. Like many of their generation, my grandparents (but not my parents) were explicitly racist.

So, to a 5 year old living in part of the country where you never get the opportunity to see or interacts with people of different ethnicities, having people like Derek Griffiths, Lenny Henry and Floella Benjamin on kids TV is important at a time when children are coming to understand the world.

On the other hand, you hear stories like this and you can certainly make the argument it has gone too far.

Rickroll, marketing concepts, promotional budgeting, and strategies are general based upon many interrelated, rather than a very few or a single factor. Proportional increases of non-whites displayed in advertisements are not entirely due to one single factor.

Yes, bigotry is less politically correct and more politically incorrect. More people and their children who were openly bigoted in prior years, are now more careful to attribute their bigoted actions and speech to other than racial reasons. Yes, the general public is now more aware and less tolerant of bigotry.

I contend proportional increases of non-whites in advertisements is more due to laws and regulation penalizing illegal acts of bigotry, and the increased purchasing powers of non-whites in the USA. The overwhelming majority of those who are less tolerant of non-whites (if they have something to sell), are eager to sell their products and not reluctant to accepting non-white's money. It's not a case of “black is beautiful or less ugly; its a case of green and gold, (everyone's money is beautiful. Respectfully, Supposn

Which itself has faced allegations of anti Semitism and anti Asian bigotry.

Seems like a small price to pay in order to help level the playing field that the racists in America made

Racism against Jews and Asians is okay why exactly??

So the response to racism against minorities is...moar racism against minorities? Lay off the shatter mate.

I don’t think you understand how racism works. Racism is saying one class of people is better than another due to their race. Helping a class of people that have been disproportionately affected by racism is not racist.

Helping someone doesn’t mean they are better or worse than other races; it means that they need help, maybe more help than other races


What definition of racism are you guys using?


Yes it’s fine if you help 100 people of one class and one or two people of another class don’t get the same love.

You're the one who seems to be okay with anti Semitism and racism against Asians, I'm going by your own words here.

Directing limited resources to one group means denying those resources to another group. If the determination of which groups to allocate resources to is based on a criterion of race, then that resource allocation is racist, at least in a certain sense of the word.

You are correct that such a program may not be motivated by racial animosity, so in that sense it wouldn't be racist.

The valid debate is not over what sense of the word "racist" we want to use, the debate should be over to what extent racial criteria should be used in resource allocation decisions.

As far as the debate about how the advertising budgets of businesses should be allocated, I think the most valid system is to leave it to the discretion of the shareholders and managers of those businesses and let the market decide.

Quote please

If you "help" by allocating scarce resources by law you are actively damaging everyone else.

And that's racism if the damaged groups are racially identifiable.

If you donate your own resources only to blacks that's not racism, because other races had no claim on those resources.

If you use taxpayer money's to only help blacks that's racism instead.

Is that clearer?

For public money, or allocation of otherwise scarce public resources, the constitutional answer is very clear and it's "never, no exceptions".

What? Are you taking the pi... I mean, sure pw here y'go.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...2&postcount=79

If you need any more reminders on stuff you said about three short posts ago then do let me know.

Does the government have a responsibility to make sure everyone is treated equitably?

Again that is not racism. You’re misunderstanding the word and applying it incorrectly. Fixing inequity is not racism. Race based solutions are not racism.


Racism is saying or acting like one group is better than the other based on race.


Right that’s not racism

Gosh I (and others) must have misinterpreted your musings so, re racism towards Jews and Asians helping to level the playing field (whatever tf that actually means) as endorsing racism toward Jews and Asians, silly us. I'm sure you have an explanation though, just as I'm sure said explanation won't be big on coherence, so let's just lie I mean say that we clearly misinterpreted your comment which seemed to endorse anti Asian and Jewish racism and leave it at that, to spare us from your further ramblings I mean insights.

giving people extra benefits because they are more in need is not racism.

Again, racism is when you think one race of people is better than the other.

perhaps to you being in need makes someone lesser? but not to me, and I do not see being in need as being more or lesser than anyone.

If you select on the basis of need and need alone, and some race gets more help than some other, that's not racism.

Medicaid isn't racism.

But affirmative action is

Taking race into consideration is racism.

Positive discrimination is racism.

Racism should be fully illegal with no exception for the public, and always legal for private actors (you have a right to discriminate, IE to interact as you wish with anyone or not for any reason)

No, it has a responsibility to treat everyone in the same way, and if some have worse outcomes that shouldn't be the government business in any way or form at all

Taking race into consideration isn’t racism

Nice try tho.

Are you one of those “I don’t see race” people?

No i am "doesn't matter what you see, it should be criminal to take that in consideration" (as a public official).

Btw in many counties is actually illegal to ever take race into consideration

That logic isn’t going to work here.

It's kind of the definition of racism. DUCY?

Helping people who have been affected is not the same as saying one race is better than any other.

Needing help doesn’t mean you are better or worse than another race. It just means you need help


Since it’s kind of the definition you’re admitting it isn’t the definition, is that correct