It has to do with population location; race outcomes were incidental. The policy Targets counties, by their level of economic distress. Meanwhile most blacks live in Urban counties that have lower unemployment rates.
You didn’t even respond to this. You didn’t even try. I gave you two perfectly reasonable ways to fix this policy, and you didn’t even comment on them. Why?
That would mean Sears is de facto a sexist company, because women weren’t being promoted in equal measure to men. The truth however is far more complicated.
And that’s the part of your argument I’m rejecting, the part that is offering superficial logic, that is too fragile for me to let stand.
Inequities can exist, and be the fault of no one. That is absolutely true.
Anderson? Even if you don’t believe that happened in this case, you can’t deny that what you said, is no universal principle. Contributing factors matter here.
Except inequities have to be unjust the same way as murdering civilians for that comparison to work.
Inequities however, can be just. There’s inequities in the income between rural and urban areas. There’s inequities in who plays for the NBA.
And none of it is wrong.
Anderson, for us to have common ground, you need to excise the superficial logic.
Statistics pointing out a racial divergence is not automatic justification to call the policy racist. You either misspoke, or you’re backing something Thomas Sowell spent his entire career disproving.
We’re not talking about police brutality, or lethal shootings, we’re talking about county-wide circumstances that justify or deny a waiver from work requirements.
And as you know, there is an argument to apply work requirements unlike brutality or shootings, so you can’t equivocate them as cleanly as you imply.