Oddbean new post about | logout
▲ ▼
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 | 1 years ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 @98f40d15 

I agree with you, as I stated in my original reply as well they are wrong, biased, etc... that was never in question. What I am trying to understand better isnt how it is biased, or unfair.. but rather what elements about it are explicit to race... I got that answer from another person who instead of attacking me and calling me a sealion actually bothered to make a sincere attempt at answering that, and they had a good answer: because it assumes a white cultural norm (long hair being unprofessional) that does not exist in other cultures. And thus is written to specifically enforce the rules of a white culture... it was a good answer... just a shame people like you were derailing an honest productive conversation.

@1e29b471
▲ ▼
Toot Sweet | 1 years ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 @b05df304 @1e29b471 
What do you mean you want to understand 'what elements are explicit to race?' It's how it is arbitrarily & disproportionately applied. Those reasons will change, it's not just bc of white norms. They'll find reasons, until girls are wearing burkas & Black kids have heads shaved or neither allowed in school. It will be arbitrarily applied bc of racism. That is how hate works. 
I didn't presume you were white. I saw you didn't seem to know racism.
▲ ▼
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 | 1 years ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 @98f40d15 

> What do you mean you want to understand 'what elements are explicit to race?' It's how it is arbitrarily & disproportionately applied. 

That part was never in question (as I pointed out in my original quote)... the fact that racists apply it unfairly is not the least bit in doubt and I stated so.

The point is a law being racist or not is seperate from if the law is applied racist or not. If murder is made illegal and you only arrest black people for murder, then it is applied unfairly and in a racist way. No one would argue we need to strike murder from the books as a law because it is a racist law, of course not, instead we try to address the racism in one way or another.

By comparison a law like segregation or slavery is **inherently** racist regardless of if it is applied by someone without racial bias (as the law itself is racist).

Thats the question here, the original article claimed the law itself was unfair and racist, this part I was confused on (though now i can see reasons to justify this thinking). The fact that it was also applied in a racist way as the article claims was something i explicitly didnt question.

> I didn't presume you were white. I saw you didn't seem to know racism.

While I can accept that was your assumption, it was still based on you not even bothering reading my response (because you claimed i didnt know things that I explcitly claimed and agreed in my response)...

So the question remains, why did you make all these assumptions when clearly you didnt even bother to read my comment? You explanation as to why you felt it was justified was literally the complete opposite of what I **actually** said... Do you have an excuse for that or maybe you want to apologize and are willing to admit you were wrong for doing so?

I am happy to listen, but so far you sound like a bully who is just trying to justify their disgusting behavior rather than admit they were wrong.

@1e29b471