So killing a white baby is ok if it's "atonement for racism"?

The guilt of the party for whatever you're atoning for is irrelevant?

If that involves more racism or rights violations against innocent individuals, yes.

You don't get to lynch a newborn white baby and simply dismiss it as "amendment for racism".

That's not a magical phrase that justifies racism or distortion of basic logic and language. Holding someone guilty of something simply because of the color of their skin is racist.

We're talking about hurricane relief. The hurricane wasn't racist. The lower income white folks in Florida trailer parks aren't responsible.

So that doesn't make any logical sense. You're just being racist.

Your actual argument is that some poor people in Florida need to be held responsible for harm done by me because the pigment of their skin is similar. That's clearly racist.

Meanwhile, you can't provide a single example of my supposed racism.

I'm opposed to racism across the board.

You're promoting it. You're so edgy.

Amendment for harm done by a hurricane?

We're back to the racist hurricane...

And upon continued searching I've yet to find a single definition of racism that says "except against white people"

So you're anti science and anti language.

The things a racist will do to justify their racism...

It's not just possible. It is.

But again, explain how punishing poor white people makes up for historic racism?

Yes it is.

Especially in such a non nonsensical manner.

Why does a low income trailer park white person in Florida have responsibility for historic systemic racism against colored people?

From a CRT perspective of power and related systemic dynamics, lower class whites living in trailer parks have more in relation with colored folks than other middle class white folks.

You just want to punish them to assuage your guilt or something.

Sorry man, but racism is bad.

Of course systemic racism against black people is racism.

We're different in that I don't think that justifies racism against white people.

I'm opposed to all racism. You selectively support it

Racism is increasing. People are actively promoting it more in recent history.

But it's certainly not worse. It's a bunch of smooth brained anti intellectuals trying to prove how woke they are.

Nothing compared to say, slavery, a lot of the Jim Crow era stuff, etc, of our past.

Still certainly not good though

Uh...

> discrimination on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group

Yep. It fits the very basic definition of racism.

Unless you're taking an anti science position that the hurricane is racist or something...

Yeah sorry. Reverse is racism.

Not being racist is prioritizing relief based on impact from the hurricane. Which scientifically speaking is totally unrelated to skin color.

I'm not saying it's worse. You just made that up. I'm saying it's racism. And racism is bad.

You're making an absurd whataboutism to defend racism and then claim it's not racism.

Like maybe we should lynch some white people to make up for our flawed history....

Actively deprioritized?

You're just making up BS. A hurricane is a weather event that has no concern for human skin color. Response should therefore be to prioritize those effected by the hurricane, independent of their skin color.

Unless you're racist. But that's the world we live in now. You have a group of people who think it's cool to be racist to make up for past racism or something.

Racism begets racism. It's always bad.

I'm pretty sure saying you going to prioritize support based on race is racism.

"Where going to prioritize support of white communities"

Yep. Racism.

I'm not actually arguing we should have government track and make publicly available employer disciplinary actions for some people (just not me).

So why not more!? Who cares unless you have something to hide /s

Exactly. The government should track and make publicly available lifetime employee disciplinary action for everybody.

You agree or you hate fire departments.

So you agree, why not more? And accessible by everyone.

So no examples of cognitive dissonance. Thanks.

Pro tip, when insulting others, try being accurate.

Right. So we need the government to collect and post citizen's legal history on a site for people sophisticated to access but not sophisticated enough to use Google and search for themselves?

Such as?

How did they write this article then?

I'm saying why stop at doctor's. Why do you deserve and right to privacy. Let's have the government track everyone.

Or maybe the thought experiment is revealing it's a problem...

Yeah yeah. Privacy is important for you because you're not as important as a doctor or something.