Denial – a helluva drug. :mask:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/825130

Your descriptions focus on societal reality on a broad scale, in other words, they've reiterated the comprehensive definition I've outlined. They don't explain the how & why of when we use them in specific cases to identify the "theory & practice" or implementation.

How can we identify the "theory & practice"? Why is something part of the "theory & practice" of racism? I hope your answer can show why an interpretation of harm to the relevant demographic is inaccurate.

Hmm.. racism vs anti-blackism. I think the problem is the ‘ism’ that is implied whenever we pit one broad category (white) against another (black). — Joshs

White people don't like black people... There is no "ism" there. It's just a fact. It's not ideology or philosophy, it's the way the world, or at least the United States, is.

BC, we've talked about neoliberal capitalism in the past, and I imagine you might agree that it's not in the best interests of disadvantaged minorities for a variety of reasons. Its upending would do much to cure the disparity in outcomes between racial groups. How does this factor into the topic of the comprehensive understanding of racism? In my view, the social realities won't resolve themselves, even if the factors perpetuating them involved no racially-based motive. Should "ending racism" be understood as addressing such factors, such as neoliberal capitalism and others?

White people don't like black people... There is no "ism" there. It's just a fact. It's not ideology or philosophy, it's the way the world, or at least the United States, is. — T Clark

Making assertions without evidence or justification isn't very helpful.

If you don't want to provide evidence, tell me how you've reached this conclusion. I suspect you're not told as much by offenders, so you must be interpreting it, and I suspect you are interpreting through the effect, as I said in my OP. Since you're aware that you can't prove intent or belief, the effect is all you've got. Requiring a proof of some kind would destroy your position, right? I don't say this to invalidate you, since intent isn't always required within morality, and action & effect can suffice, but I want to clarify how you're thinking about this.

In an effort to be genuine and transparent, it's my view that the comprehensive definition's subjective standard of evidence is unacceptable. Invalidates it apart as a valid moral critique, and makes it only useful descriptively. So, although I do recognise the need for flexibility, I also can't agree with allowing anyone to interpret whatever, however, with no rules or standards.

[neoliberalism's] upending would do much to cure the disparity in outcomes between racial groups. How does this factor into the topic of the comprehensive understanding of racism? — Judaka

The disparity in input and outcomes (like, how much is spent on educating a child and how well that child does after graduating; or how much is invested in a given neighborhood and how well that neighborhood functions over time) helps maintain prejudice.

A lot is said about the wide performance gap between black and white children; less is said about the wide funding gap between wealthy white suburban school districts and poor black school districts. Much richer neighborhoods are much nicer than much poorer neighborhoods. Families tend to do better in neighborhoods which are green and leafy; have convenient high-quality markets; have little crime; where rats and roaches are a rarity; where the streets are clean; where there are safe and pleasant playgrounds.

Accessible good schools and nice neighborhoods or services that every family needs generally are not plentiful where they are provided on a for-profit basis (the neoliberal method). Social investment is a long-term project, not a fast turn around profit-producer.

Any group of people who regularly receive the least share of social goods are going to be looked down on, and be the recipients of prejudicial treatment.

Should "ending racism" be understood as addressing such factors, such as neoliberal capitalism and others? — Judaka

Yes. I would suggest that achieving social (or racial) justice will mean black's access to better education ----> better jobs ----> better housing ----> in better neighborhoods. Skip the "anti-racist training programs", skip black English, forget about micro aggressions, etc. etc. etc. DELIVER first rate education and training programs. Make sure there are no artificial barriers to equal access to good jobs; enforce equal access to housing in any neighborhood. In other words, make it possible for blacks to work and live as well as whites.

Will that automatically result in the disappearance of prejudice? No, not immediately, but prejudice will matter less.

White people don't like black people... — T Clark

Making assertions without evidence or justification isn't very helpful. — Judaka

It seems to me it is evident that many white people are very prejudiced against most black people. There are stats that validate this observation, but anyone with eyes and ears can see prejudice in operation without having to look very far.

If T Clark had said "Black people have more money that white people..." one could reasonably demand evidence, since the statement is so contrary to the common view.

This Pew Research report is the sort of thing that backs up T Clark's statement.

It seems to me it is evident that many white people are very prejudiced against most black people. There are stats that validate this observation, but anyone with eyes and ears can see prejudice in operation without having to look very far. — BC

Yes, I agree with what you've written, but I would go further. I am as huggy-kissy liberal as just about anyone. I also have very close black friends whom I consider family. And yet, I see and feel those same judgmental, suspicious impulses in myself. I will go so far as to say that any white person who claims that isn't also true of them is deluded. Do you think that doesn't show? Do you think it isn't humiliating?

I'm not asking for guilt or shame, just self-awareness and acknowledgement.

Making assertions without evidence or justification isn't very helpful. — Judaka

What an odd thing to say. The evidence I see is the same as what you see - the way black people are treated here in the US. The governor of one of our largest states claims that ancestors of black people living here today benefited from their enslavement. Earlier in this thread, I quoted from a news article about a man who couldn't fish in a lake near his home without his neighbors continually calling the police. I've told before about my friend who never felt welcomed in her life till she visited Hawaii where her skin color was mistaken as native Hawaiian. I've also written previously about Tim Scott, the black US Senator from South Carolina and a current presidential candidate who wrote about the humiliation he suffered being stopped and questioned time after time on the Capitol grounds. And on and on and on and on and on for 400 years.

In previous discussions, the difference between your and my moral sense has become clear. You have focused on more or less codified social moral rules while I have focused on personal empathy and kindness. Sometimes it seems like we are talking different languages and can't understand each other.

:up:

How can we identify the "theory & practice"? Why is something part of the "theory & practice" of racism? — Judaka

I don't know what you mean by "identify" when you suggest that nothing in the posts I've linked describe the "why & how of racism". Maybe I'm wrong but I suspect you didn't actually (or carefully) read what I'd written.

I hope your answer can show why an interpretation of harm to the relevant demographic is inaccurate.

I don't know what you mean by this sentence.

It seems to me it is evident that many white people are very prejudiced against most black people. There are stats that validate this observation, but anyone with eyes and ears can see prejudice in operation without having to look very far. — BC

I'm unsure to what extent the stats validate the observation.

If the government takes two municipalities and over a century, gives one immensely preferential treatment. Then in year 101, says, okay, this unfair treatment is over, each municipality is free to do with their tax revenue what they wish, and we'll treat each the same. Well, one city is going to have quality infrastructure, well-educated and high-income citizens, access to employment etc. The other will have none of that, plus a ton of social problems and issues due to a century of neglect and oppression.

In that case, the statistics and the disparity in outcomes wouldn't prove that the government wasn't now giving equal treatment. Since the historical context might suffice.

At any rate, I feel like we could at least agree that under neoliberal capitalism, there's zero chance these two municipalities would ever come to be on par. The differences would only be sure to increase. I'm certain of that, and perhaps you are too, so then, how can you expect me to assume the disparities in outcomes prove racial hatred?

The disparity in outcomes won't heal without positive action, their existence just proves that hasn't happened yet, and the degree of influence of racial hatred is unclear.

In previous discussions, the difference between your and my moral sense has become clear. You have focused on more or less codified social moral rules while I have focused on personal empathy and kindness. Sometimes it seems like we are talking different languages and can't understand each other. — T Clark

I'm not sure why you got that from our previous discussions, I told you morality is heavily rooted in emotion and personal feelings, it is the ability to perceive things as right/wrong, fair/unfair, justified/unjustified. I view moral rules as applied selectively, and factors like compassion and emotion are highly influential in that. As a force for social control, the majority view has that effect and is intended, but I differentiate it from other forms of social control because it's based on moral sense, which is more danger prone and less practical than say, the social contract.

I'm just pointing out the issue with interpreting racism, and that basically, this relies a lot on how one's method of interpreting it. As far as I can tell, if that man had the police called on him, it was due to the owners being suspicious of men or the poor rather than black people, it's likely that you wouldn't be able to tell.

There's a difference between feeling compassion for someone and claiming when something immoral took place. If one interprets racism whenever a minority is treated badly, even if the offenders insist on some other reason, how can that not be a problem? How can there be no burden of evidence on you whatsoever? I agree with BC, that anti-racism education isn't the issue here, one can't expect centuries of oppression and neglect not to have lasting consequences. Most of the issues described by the comprehensive definition won't be resolved without major intervention.

For example, take a taxi driver who doesn't pick up black males at night, in an area where black males are disproportionately likely to rob them. That's racism, no doubt. But it's not an irrational, nonsensical prejudice, is it? He's gotten robbed a couple of times, he's traumatised, it is racism, it's wrong of him, but I'm sympathetic. When the overriding nature of morality mandates irrationality, there's a problem with that.

I think the US economic system fucks over the poor and disadvantaged. I want this fact to be part of the discussion. I don't want racial hatred to be assumed whenever it might be applicable, is that wrong?

We agree that the comprehensive definition of racism requires an imbalance of power between the group doing the oppressing and being oppressed. However, we can't rely on, for example, Israel telling us explicitly that they're doing as they are due to racism, we need to interpret it. We can't read minds though, and we can't prove intent, and the pattern more than anything proves the oppression. For something to be considered racist, we need to interpret it to be harmful to the relevant demographic. In fact, you've argued an unwillingness to upend the legacies of racism to be racist. The inaction's harmfulness is what makes it racist, yes?

Basically, we can't parse between what's racially motivated, and where some other motivation is at play, and we can't be expected to prove it, so long as we interpret harm, we'll describe it as racism, is that fair? The label is given when one interprets its harm and does so using their own methods. The "how" and "why" something is racist is that it causes harm to the relevant demographic. Do you agree?

To clarify, I understand you'd word it differently, as that's how morality is, you can replace harm with some dramatic, evocative language. I just want to know in a descriptive sense, how you'd avoid calling any harm to the relevant demographic as racist.

This Pew Research report is the sort of thing that backs up T Clark's statement. — BC

Thanks for the link... and the support.

I'm not sure why you got that from our previous discussions, I told you morality is heavily rooted in emotion and personal feelings, it is the ability to perceive things as right/wrong, fair/unfair, justified/unjustified. — Judaka

Yes, I don't think I expressed myself well. I didn't mean to disparage your way of seeing things. It's just that you and I talk about moral issues in different terms in ways that can seem contradictory.

I'm just pointing out the issue with interpreting racism, and that basically, this relies a lot on how one's method of interpreting it. — Judaka

Agreed and, as I noted, I think my way of interpreting conditions is more likely to help us understand the situation better than by talking about racism. It's important for us to know that 40 million Americans face daily, grinding humiliation and that we, white people, all share responsibility. I think if people understood that no one would have the balls to talk about all the benefits of slavery.

As far as I can tell, if that man had the police called on him, it was due to the owners being suspicious of men or the poor rather than black people, it's likely that you wouldn't be able to tell. — Judaka

This is clearly not true. The neighborhood being discussed is middle class and the person involved is a professional who lives there. As the article I quoted noted, other men, white men, fish there all the time without being harassed.

Racism has to come from somewhere. It didn't just pop up out of nowhere. American racism is rooted in class antagonism that has been maintained since Plymouth Rock, and our history of chattel slavery.

Class status (which is generally a visible trait to attentive eyes) matters. White people who look 'lower class' are likely to get shabbier treatment than other white people who are several steps up the class ladder. White people who are 4th or 5th generation low class tend to be stuck there.

Race is linked to class. Blacks have long been at the bottom of the class hierarchy. People whose identity began (in this country) as chattel property are, by definition, the rock-bottom lowest class. In their most vigorous discrimination, whites assign to blacks the bottom status of lowest value, least deserving respect, lowest paid, worst jobs, expected to be welfare, probably petty criminals, and so on.

Long ago the ruling classes learned that insecurity is one more handy tool to keep the peasants under control.

It is very difficult for white people whose class status is insecure to grant the kind of treatment to blacks they would accord to other whites who are their equals or betters. White people do not reinvent race hatred in every generation; we inherit it. Black people likewise inherit their low status.

If the government takes two municipalities and over a century, gives one immensely preferential treatment. Then in year 101, says, okay, this unfair treatment is over, each municipality is free to do with their tax revenue what they wish, and we'll treat each the same. Well, one city is going to have quality infrastructure, well-educated and high-income citizens, access to employment etc. The other will have none of that, plus a ton of social problems and issues due to a century of neglect and oppression.

In that case, the statistics and the disparity in outcomes wouldn't prove that the government wasn't now giving equal treatment. Since the historical context might suffice. — Judaka

That's where we are at. 160 years of unfair allocation of resources.

Raising blacks' collective low status requires both the opportunity and the means to better their status through their own demonstrable efforts. Reparation plans that involve giving every descendent of slavery $5000 cash (or whatever figure they might settle on) won't achieve anything more than aggravating race hatred.

A California reparation plan makes more sense: Use the funds set aside to give to black people the same opportunity to own property and accumulate wealth that whites received from the 1935 FHA legislation: readily available mortgages for good properties. More, use the set aside funds to do compensatory education, job training in fields with a future, like hospitality management. (Blacks were specifically denied the benefits of FHA and VA mortgage programs.)

IF the material means can be significantly improved, and if working class financial security cam be achieved (a revolutionary goal, not something that is going to happen under the current regime) race hatred can be reduced--maybe eventually expunged (but don't hold your breath waiting),

no one would have the balls to talk about all the benefits of slavery — T Clark

Zero benefits to the slaves, certainly. While slaves did learn skills, it was for the exclusive benefit of the slave owner. The property owners, merchants (all goods), and bankers received huge benefits from slavery. The value of slaves (prior to the civil war) was about $4 billion--a major chunk of American assets at the time (based on the number of slaves and the average value of slaves).

Cotton exports were a major source of income for New England and New York exporters, shippers, bankers, and mill owners. Buying and selling slaves was also quite profitable, and involved businesses beside southern planters. Poor whites in the south didn't benefit; neither did pioneers moving westward. The white workers in various industries benefitted far less than the owners of the shops.

Good posts. I have come to think your emphasis on class rather than just race is the proper approach for dealing with our racial issues. I can't think of any other way that can provide relief without making black people and poor white people enemies.

Yes, I don't think I expressed myself well. I didn't mean to disparage your way of seeing things. It's just that you and I talk about moral issues in different terms in ways that can seem contradictory. — T Clark

If I recall correctly, we hadn't had any disagreements in the thread we talked about morality, but perhaps I said something I disagreed with that you left unaddressed. I won't speculate as to the nature of this apparent difference.

Agreed and, as I noted, I think my way of interpreting conditions is more likely to help us understand the situation better than by talking about racism. It's important for us to know that 40 million Americans face daily, grinding humiliation and that we, white people, all share responsibility. — T Clark

Racial hatred might be less ambiguous, but I think it's also misrepresentative, and the rules for your applying it are non-existent, which I find unacceptable. Racial discrimination or prejudice would at least not be misrepresentative, since that's what you think you're seeing.

Also, I reject racial and ethnic histories, cultures and groups. I don't think white people are responsible for anything, and as I told you before, I would prefer to see black Americans taking responsibility for slavery as Americans. That would represent the kind of progress I think would be helpful.

Contemporary prejudice is complicated, it's not based on any single thing, and the reasons for it are vast and complex. How we understand racism should be reflected in these complexities. Your understanding is far too simplistic, why is it so lacking in nuance?

"Cui bono?"

Racism (again for the slow fuckers way in the back) denotes color/ethnic prejudice plus POWER of a dominant community (color/ethnic in-group) OVER non-dominant communities (color/ethnic out-groups). Whether Hutus over Tutsis, Israeli Jews over Israeli Arabs, Hans over Uyghurs, Turks over Kurds, Kosovo Serbs over Kosovo Albanians, Russians over Chechens, Israeli Ashkenazim over Israeli Sephardim, American Whites over American Blacks Browns Yellows & Reds, etc, this description of racism obtains. — 180 Proof

:mask:

We can't read minds though, and we can't prove intent, ... — Judaka

"Intent" is irrelevant.

... and the pattern more than anything proves the oppression.

Yes.

For something to be considered racist, we need to interpret it to be harmful to the relevant demographic.

Who is this "we" that "needs to interpret" what's "harmful"? "The relevant demographic", as you say, those harmed by "the pattern" of "oppression" recognize the selective mistreatment and violence independent of whether or not this "we" "interprets" it "to be considered racist". As I comprehend (& use) the term, racism is first and foremost an ideological-juridical-sociological concept, Judaka, about how groups and societies are legally-civilly regulated into hierarchies – castes – and policed (i.e. "order" maintained via phenotypical scapegoating ~Girard)

In fact, you've argued an unwillingness to upend the legacies of racism to be racist. The inaction's harmfulness is what makes it racist, yes?

No. "The legacies of racism" themselves are what's racist; "the inaction" is a constituent feature – indoctrinated social inertia – of these "legacies".

Basically, we can't parse between what's racially motivated, and where some other motivation is at play, and we can't be expected to prove it, so long as we interpret harm, we'll describe it as racism, is that fair?

This is completely connfused for reasons already given above and my previous posts. On historical-empirical and experiential grounds, I refuse to conflate and confuse personal anti-black prejudice (i.e. hatred, bigotry) with structural-systemic-social anti-black discrimination (i.e. racism) as your comments – assumptions – suggest that you do. Prejudice, like the poor, might always be with us, but social arrangements of racial castes (i.e. dominance hierarchies) are artifacts of political-economic ideologies of given times and places and, therefore, can be resisted ... until these pernicious social llarrangements are replaced. This is why prejudice (re: moral) and racism (re: political) are functionally different phenomena, though tangential, which are effectively opposed to the degree this functional difference remains intellectual explicit and thereby operational.

I just want to know in a descriptive sense, how you'd avoid calling any harm to the relevant demographic as racist.

Is a specific harm to "the relevant demographic" structural (re: exploitation)? systemic (re: discrimination)? or social (re: exclusionary)? If yes to any of these questions, then that specific harm is racist – and those functionaries who carry it out or who uncritically benefit directly (or indirectly) are themselves racist.

Racism (again for the slow fuckers way in the back) denotes color/ethnic prejudice plus POWER of a dominant community (color/ethnic in-group) OVER non-dominant communities (color/ethnic out-groups). Whether Hutus over Tutsis, Israeli Jews over Israeli Arabs, Hans over Uyghurs, Turks over Kurds, Kosovo Serbs over Kosovo Albanians, Russians over Chechens, Israeli Ashkenazim over Israeli Sephardim, American Whites over American Blacks Browns Yellows & Reds, etc, this description of racism obtains. — 180 Proof

:up: Yep, I totally see this. And white Australians over Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people - not to mention white Australians over any number migrant and refugee groups, Greek, Italian, Middle Eastern, African...

In the 1970's, I remember a Baptist preacher giving us a talk about race and the coming end of Aboriginal Australians. The line I recall was something like - 'It will be for the best at some time in the future when the Aboriginal person will be bred out and be no more.' This was Christian compassion and inclusiveness at its most perverse. Naturally, there was a preamble at the start about how the Good Reverend was not a racist...

If I recall correctly, we hadn't had any disagreements in the thread we talked about morality, but perhaps I said something I disagreed with that you left unaddressed. I won't speculate as to the nature of this apparent difference. — Judaka

When you and I have discussed morality previously, I always felt that our understandings missed each other. It's not that we disagreed, just that we talked different language.

the rules for your applying it are non-existent — Judaka

I don't know what this means. I described what I mean and provided examples. If you're saying that you don't recognize or accept the conditions I've described, I don't know what else to say. It seems obvious to me. And I'm already walking on thin ice. For me to claim to be some sort of expert on the black experience in America would be more than arrogant, laughable, and disrespectful. It would be... deluded, self-aggrandizing, contemptable.

Also, I reject racial and ethnic histories, cultures and groups. I don't think white people are responsible for anything, and as I told you before, I would prefer to see black Americans taking responsibility for slavery as Americans. That would represent the kind of progress I think would be helpful. — Judaka

This seems naive to me. Worse than that... willfully blind and self-serving.

Your understanding is far too simplistic, why is it so lacking in nuance? — Judaka

The source of the problem and possible solutions might be complex, but the problem itself is simple as pie.

In the 1970's, I remember a Baptist preacher giving us a talk about race and the coming end of Aboriginal Australians. The line I recall was something like - 'It will be for the best at some time in the future when the Aboriginal person will be bred out and be no more.' This was Christian compassion and inclusiveness at its most perverse. Naturally, there was a preamble at the start about how the Good Reverend was not a racist.. — Tom Storm

WTF :shade:

Who is this "we" that "needs to interpret" what's "harmful"? — 180 Proof

I meant "one".

As I comprehend (& use) the term, racism is first and foremost an ideological-juridical-sociological concept — 180 Proof

Fair enough, my OP was about how this interpretation requires a change in how we think about racism on an interpersonal level, using the simplistic definition (prejudice), and I'm satisfied with your answer. That being said, the word "racism' has a lot of power, and how it's defined and understood matters to a lot of people. I don't know to which authority you think you can demand others use the comprehensive definition, but the alternative you condemn is common use.

I have been referencing the comprehensive definition of racism, so we've mostly on been the same page.

Is a specific harm to "the relevant demographic" structural (re: exploitation)? systemic (re: discrimination)? or social (re: exclusionary)? If yes to any of these questions, then that specific harm is racist – and those functionaries who carry it out or who uncritically benefit directly (or indirectly) are themselves racist. — 180 Proof

Okay, thanks.

Racism & racist are terms with strong moral meaning, and so where I disagree with you, I will reject your language use, for I have no other choice. The alternative would have me justify and defend racism & being racist, which you may interpret me to be doing as you like, but I can't actively do that, it's an untenable position. Many of the other moral terms you've introduced here function in that same way.

That's why I prefer to talk descriptively. I have no idea what you would and wouldn't interpret as exploitation or exclusionary and so on. But I can agree that how one interprets is what determines whether something is part of the comprehensive definition of racism, as I argued in my OP.

The source of the problem and possible solutions might be complex, but the problem itself is simple as pie. — T Clark

Okay, what's "the problem"?

I don't know what this means. I described what I mean and provided examples. If you're saying that you don't recognize or accept the conditions I've described, I don't know what else to say. It seems obvious to me. — T Clark

I'm aware of your capability to interpret using race as your lens, my concern is whether you're able to know when not to do that.

This seems naive to me. Worse than that... willfully blind and self-serving. — T Clark

Why is it naive?

Got your point. Thanks for explaining since it is an uncommon take on the wording that I wouldn't have guessed if you hadn't explained it. What's your alternative label?

I prefer to talk descriptively. — Judaka

Well, I think "descriptive talk" like yours tends to confuse bigots with racists. I don't have that luxury, Judaka. As a Black American Sisyphus, it's a matter of daily survival for me to be anti-racist (not merely anti-bigot), that is, vigilant of and – in any way I/we can be – actively opposed to structural, systemic and social modes of racism (re: ).

Okay, what's "the problem"? — Judaka

As I wrote previously - white people don't like, trust, or respect black people.

I'm aware of your capability to interpret using race as your lens, my concern is whether you're able to know when not to do that. — Judaka

This whole thread is about looking at society using race as a lens.

Why is it naive? — Judaka

You wrote:

Also, I reject racial and ethnic histories, cultures and groups. I don't think white people are responsible for anything, and as I told you before, I would prefer to see black Americans taking responsibility for slavery as Americans. That would represent the kind of progress I think would be helpful. — Judaka

You seem to be saying that considering race a cause of social inequality in the US is wrong. First, I think that ignores history. Second, as I noted, this whole discussion is about the effects of race on American society.

What's your alternative label? — LuckyR

I don't see any need for a label.

I don't see any need for a label

Uummm... how do you communicate what others call "racism"?

how do you communicate what others call "racism"? — LuckyR

That's what I'm doing with my posts here in this discussion.

As I wrote previously - white people don't like, trust, or respect black people. — T Clark

This is kind of the same level as a business saying "The problem is we're not making enough money". Okay, but the why is essential, explaining the problem in this most basic, inaccurate way, as a massive generalisation, that's pointless. Imagine if we did this in engineering, and said "The problem is simple, something isn't working properly". Great... thanks for the insight. Even if your explanation was technically true, so what? It's too general, to the point of being misrepresentative, you should know better.

This whole thread is about looking at society using race as a lens. — T Clark

No, it's about acknowledging the disconnect between ideology and intention from the simplistic to the comprehensive definition of racism. 180 has the right idea, in simply abandoning altogether the idea that ideology and intention are relevant because quite simply, the comprehensive definition of racism provides no framework for differentiating the various logics and intents at play. Which is what this thread is about.

You seem to be saying that considering race a cause of social inequality in the US is wrong. First, I think that ignores history. Second, as I noted, this whole discussion is about the effects of race on American society. — T Clark

How did you take what I said as a claim that race isn't a cause of social inequality in the US? I just think it's not that important going forward, besides as a lesson to learn from. Race inequality isn't something I care about, but I do care about inequality. Equality of outcomes between races, I don't care about, but I would like to see people treated fairly and with dignity.