Here’s a good thought experiment on the question. Here is House Speaker Kevin McCarthy attending and participating in the unveiling of the John Lewis stamp (definitely getting some). If DeSantis were Speaker, do you think he would perform this largely ceremonial duty in the name of unity, or fail to attend and pick a fight with a reporter that asks about it while dodging the question? I know what I think. BTW, kudos to McCarthy. A very low bar, literally the least the Speaker should do, part of the job, but he will probably get criticism inside his caucus and base
I don’t know what you want from me. This whole “end state” conversation is something you brought up. Clearly you have some type of fascination with the topic that I do not share. I already told you twice, but for the third time, we should strive towards a more equitable chance at success. 100% equity is not achievable, nor desirable. The chance at success is what is important. Asking me for a complete answer then being upset that I can’t provide a complete answer is a set up. Why don’t you ask me to solve world hunger in a few short sentences while you are at it? It’s a very complex problem.
I'm not upset with you, I might've lost my patience with you a bit, but you've been respectful for the most part. I agree it's a complicated problem. I just also think that if we're talking about solutions, we need to discuss how the fixed problem would look. If perfect equity is not achievable, then it's possible (I would argue more than likely) that people will always be claiming some form of this oppressor and oppressed dichotomy, whether it be through race, class, religion... it doesn't matter. The point is separating people into those groups on the basis that one group is better off than the other. The next step to that will continue to be "more equity" because if inequity is the problem, presumably equity is the solution. So I think if that is the train of thought we're following, I think it's more than reasonable (again, it's necessary) to ask at what point we are equitable enough. At this point, I'd just settle for your opinion. Otherwise we can always call for more equity. And if we're always calling for more equity, either we wake up, or some day we will be essentially calling for Communism. And to avoid that, it would help if everyone understood the flaws of Communism, the flaws of Marxism, and understood the parallels between these race-based ideologies and Marxism. And it would also help to recognize that there is no equity magic number that is fair and just. It's as simple as "some groups feel like they have a raw deal, and they support equity programs because they believe they benefit them." And for that reason I think it's fair to ask "to what end." Is the standard always just going to be "if it benefits Black people then it's good," and that's the only factor we consider? Is the standard "always help Black people, even at the expense of White people because White people were the oppressors for 400 years."
Most of the people obsessed with "equity" (their word, I've never heard an actual egalitarian use it in the non-financial sense) as being problematic basically just want to preserve the status quo and all the hierarchies it entails
