Fruit_Inspector

Yes - if you purposefully try and make something reasonable sound unreasonable - if will sound unreasonable.

It’s not a lot of money, for planting a lot of trees.

• "There's nothing inherently wrong with planting trees. However, spending $3 billion that we don't have to fight racism by planting trees sounds very unreasonable."
  

That would depend. If, for example, minority farmers had missed out on $4bn in aid in the past due to various historical policies - I wouldn’t necessarily agree it’s the best approach - but it wouldn't be racist.

If an employer gives black employees an extra $50 because last year a racist boss with held $50 bonuses from minority employees last year - that doesn’t seem unreasonable. The real world has far more complexity than the analogy; but it does broadly illustrate the nature of the issue.

The fact that people are so up in arms over a course that’s not being taught demonstrates that these people have no idea what they are talking about. If they actually cared to learn anything about race and racism they would be able to express valid criticisms, but they don’t.

The money is not a huge investment - the national debt isn’t as bad as people make it sound,

and money for planting trees in neighbourhood that don’t have them doesn’t really sound unreasonable does it?

So on the back of a post that blasts the left for making everything about race: you suggest that planting trees in communities that don’t have them is racist? Is the irony lost in you?

If the policy specifically stated that the entirety of that $3 billion must to go to black communities and could not go to white communities, would you consider that policy racist?

But it doesn’t…

It seems that’s only ever an issue when the other side is in power.

Why should the government enact discriminatory policies in order to ensure equality of outcomes? Because that is the only way to eliminate all disparities between racial groups.

So you think planting trees where there aren’t as many trees is racist?

Not really, it’s a pretty small portion of the national budget for something that would tangibly improve a lot of peoples lives.

The debt will eventually become an issue, especially if interest rates rise from their historical lows, but that will have to come through a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts IMO

Do you believe that Democrats are justifying policies that discriminate against white people with rhetoric like this? Or what do you mean by it being cringey specifically?

Yes I do believe that.

I’d be down for planting more trees in Urban areas in Canada that don’t have as many; it’s not like the premise becomes automatically unreasonable when you cross the border.

But yeah, if there is equality in community environment, what’s next?? Infant mortality? Access to housing? voting rights? Where will it end!

Trees are good and more should be planted in urban areas.

The rhetoric used to justify the expenditure is extremely cringey but the left is a one trick pony these days, rhetorically speaking. Just because something is presented in a bad way doesn’t make it a bad idea

If you want to see reverse racism in action, you don't need to look further than South Africa, which has been in SEVERE social decline with huge inequities since the rise of reverse racism.

USA doesn't need to go down that path. Equality under the law was a good idea in 1965, and it still is today.

Just saw this and it seemed relevant to what we talked about. From the article "How America’s treeless streets are fueling inequality":

Trees, and the shade they provide, are actually markers of race and class...According to the data collected by the Texas A&M Forest Service, in Houston’s "medium to high" developed areas, there are an estimated 3.7 trees per person. In similar areas in Austin there are 4 trees per person and in San Antonio there are 7.5.

"There is disparity here. [Houston has] low tree canopy cover and high heat."

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/28/houston-trees-shade-heat-temperatures-race-class

This is the mindset of CRT adherents. Seek out disparities between races, attribute those causes to racism that benefits white people, then ignore any alternatives no matter how reasonable they are. Because literally everything is racist. And racist tree planting is just one more reason to tear down our entire economy and give the government more power.

(2) $3,000,000,000 to provide multi-year, programmatic, competitive grants to a State agency, a local governmental entity, an Indian Tribe, or a non-profit organization through the Urban and Community Forestry Assistance program established under section 9(c) of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2105(c)) for tree planting and related activities to increase community tree canopy and associated societal and climate co-benefits, with a priority for projects that increase tree equity;

"The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination."

Clearly there is systematic racism and if your claim is that there is no racism while simultaneously claiming racism against whites who are the privileged class you are being self contradictory and not arguing in good faith.

So can we drop it?

Why are you so determined to argue that there is no systemic racism that you made yourself sound like a racist in a thread which has zero to do with race?

Please explain democrats marxist like tendencies.

Critical Race Theory is a great example. At least, the practical application of it at a policy level.

Critical race theory is almost never considered in policy creation or application. That is why there is a need of critical race theory to he taught at the college level though it will never be taught in public schools owing mostly to the extremely advanced nature of the course. In other words no one will be given a course in critical race theory that has not already chosen to devote considerable study of race relations in American history. 

Why are you so determined to argue that there is no systemic racism that you made yourself sound like a racist in a thread which has zero to do with race?

It is the case right now that people of color are paid significantly less than their white counterparts.

Well let's start with not being disproportionally harmed or favored either explicitly or implicitly and if I find that isn't all I mean or isn't quite what I mean I will adjust the definition accordingly 

Whites were unfairly privileged and I don't know how to redress that without disadvantaging them somehow until equality is achieved.

How dare you compare the plight of the African American people throughout the centuries and today with the idea that someone else might be paid a little more than you?

Let's say then that the government decides to implement a new law concerning wages. Giving the reason that black people are disproportionately affected by poverty, this new law states that black people must earn at least 10% more than white people.

Without getting too hung up on the likelihood of this particular law or the exact amount, would a law such as this be considered systemic racism against white people or not?

It might be considered by some as a way of redressing some of the racism...

I reject any system that can justify negatively discriminating against anyone based on the color of their skin. And that's just one basic foundation of understanding in CRT.

Me too but I might be able to get behind one that redressed such discrimination past and present.

Also this whole thing started about the exploitation of wage slavery and how it takes a lot of potential satisfaction at work...

...and now you have me arguing about who should make the most currency for their labor.

Redressing inequality is not discrimination.

Apparently I am correct that our education is insufficient to the task. Your inability to spot racism only girls to show that we do need some kind of curriculum on the subject 

And again no it doesn't it shows systematic oppression of patients 

The law nevertheless had the net effect of disproportionately targeting people of color.

It certainly seems to be the case that only physical things exist. In absence of evidence to the contrary I must conclude that the idea of a non physical thing is logically incoherent.

Now unless you have such evidence I have to ask that we get back on topic which is whether or not belief in the bible is speculative.

I do not accept that anything non physical exists and am not even sure what non physical means unless it is a synonym nor nonexistent. That's as close to a simple yes or no I can give such an incoherent idea.

Yes or no do any existing laws unfairly target people of color implicitly without explicitly condoning racism?

Yes or no have such laws and or explicitly racist laws ever existed?

Yes or no would people of color be suddenly on equal footing if these laws were to end today but nothing was done to address the already existing wealth gap?

It is both. Language evolves.

What is the functional quantifiable difference between immaterial and nonexistent?

What do you mean metaphysical?

These are the basic foundations of understanding.