Is a vaccine mandate a racist policy?

[Metaphor]

Kendi's answer is an obvious dodge, and he is wrong (at least wrong by his own earlier standards) to qualify whether a vaccine mandate is racist on the basis of whether America's vaccine policy produced unequal outcomes on a particular basis (unequal access).

Kendi says:

"A racist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial inequity between racial groups. By policy, I mean written and unwritten laws, rules, procedures, processes, regulations, and guidelines that govern people."

White people are more vaccinated than black people in America. By the plain reading of Kendi's words, the vaccination rollout in America was a racist policy, because it has resulted in vaccine inequity between racial groups.

Now, we get to the mandate part. A vaccine mandate will harm the social and economic and psychological health of unvaccinated people, and black people are more likely to be unvaccinated. Applying Kendi's stated rules, a vaccine mandate in America would be a racist policy, given the underlying vaccine rate disparity.

"No" seems like a pretty clear answer to me, but then, I'm not arguing in bad faith to begin with.

If his answer were "yes", would you agree with him?

His answer was not clear at all. But, there was no follow up question, which should have been: how do you reconcile your current answer with your previous view that any policy that created or sustained racial inequity is racist?

I don't agree with Kendi's definition of a 'racist' policy, but I do not think a vaccine mandate is a racist policy, I just think it's a bad one. Of course, a vaccine mandate could be racist and compound the racist sins (if any) of its vaccine rollout policy, if that vaccine rollout policy were itself racist.

 

[Politesse]

Kendi's answer is an obvious dodge, and he is wrong (at least wrong by his own earlier standards) to qualify whether a vaccine mandate is racist on the basis of whether America's vaccine policy produced unequal outcomes on a particular basis (unequal access).

Kendi says:

"A racist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial inequity between racial groups. By policy, I mean written and unwritten laws, rules, procedures, processes, regulations, and guidelines that govern people."

White people are more vaccinated than black people in America. By the plain reading of Kendi's words, the vaccination rollout in America was a racist policy, because it has resulted in vaccine inequity between racial groups.

Now, we get to the mandate part. A vaccine mandate will harm the social and economic and psychological health of unvaccinated people, and black people are more likely to be unvaccinated. Applying Kendi's stated rules, a vaccine mandate in America would be a racist policy, given the underlying vaccine rate disparity.

"No" seems like a pretty clear answer to me, but then, I'm not arguing in bad faith to begin with.

If his answer were "yes", would you agree with him?

His answer was not clear at all. But, there was no follow up question, which should have been: how do you reconcile your current answer with your previous view that any policy that created or sustained racial inequity is racist?

I don't agree with Kendi's definition of a 'racist' policy, but I do not think a vaccine mandate is a racist policy, I just think it's a bad one. Of course, a vaccine mandate could be racist and compound the racist sins (if any) of its vaccine rollout policy, if that vaccine rollout policy were itself racist.

So you would only consider one response from Kendi acceptable, and if he provided it, you would still disagree. So why did you waste all of our time with this thread? What possible point could there be to all this?

 

[KeepTalking]

I didn't say there were systemic issues affecting only black people. But I take your response to mean "if the vaccine mandate causes black people to be more likely to be cut off from society and the economy, that does not mean it is racist". Is that right?

What I meant to say was "Only if the systemic issues preventing them from being vaccinated only affected black people". But I suppose "only" may have been too restrictive. I would be willing to substitute "predominantly" for "only".

The point is that one would need to first determine if there is a systemic issue preventing black people from being vaccinated, then examine whether or not the issue predominantly effects black people, to know if a mandate would disproportionally affect black people negatively. It is also possible, as another poster noted, that the vaccine mandate would affect black people positively, so that must be taken into account as well.

So that's why I asked the questions afterwards. What are the systemic issues? How are they predominantly affecting black people?

And, in hindsight, I would add another question or two: Given the above systemic issues, would we expect a vaccine mandate to affect black people disproportionally? If so, would that affect be positive or negative?

A vaccine mandate would affect unvaccinated people negatively. Their social, psychological, physical, and economic health will be compromised. Since black people are more likely to be unvaccinated, they would be affected 'disproportionately'.

I disagree that a mandate would affect unvaccinated people negatively. At the very least, their physical health will be improved by getting the mandated vaccine, and the mandate has led to more people getting vaccinated. Please provide evidence that they would be negatively affected in other ways, and that they outweigh the physical benefit. Given that the physical negative with not getting a vaccine because it was not mandated includes the possibility of death, I think that is going to be a hard sell.

People may know I am pro-vaccine but anti-mandate. I also think America has tried particularly hard to make the vaccine as accessible as possible to as many people as possible, and I don't think its vaccine rollout has been 'racist'.

I don't think it has been racist either. Given that the vaccine rollout being racist is a necessary condition for the mandate to be racist as well, I think we both agree that the answer to the question in your OP title is "No, vaccine mandates are not racist."

So, I don't think the vaccine mandate is a 'racist' policy, but arithmetically speaking, there will be proportionately more black people being negatively psychologically, physically, socially, and economically harmed by it.

Then by Kendi's measure the mandate is not a racist policy because the rollout itself was not a racist policy. We also have a video of Kendi himself saying that it is not racist. Seems like any way you look at it, we have arrived at the answer to your question in just 4 pages. This has to be some sort of record...

 

[Metaphor]

His answer was not clear at all. But, there was no follow up question, which should have been: how do you reconcile your current answer with your previous view that any policy that created or sustained racial inequity is racist?

I don't agree with Kendi's definition of a 'racist' policy, but I do not think a vaccine mandate is a racist policy, I just think it's a bad one. Of course, a vaccine mandate could be racist and compound the racist sins (if any) of its vaccine rollout policy, if that vaccine rollout policy were itself racist.

So you would only consider one response from Kendi acceptable, and if he provided it, you would still disagree. So why did you waste all of our time with this thread? What possible point could there be to all this?

No. There are many responses from Kendi that could be "acceptable". Some of those are:

* Yes, it's a racist policy because it creates or sustains a racial inequity

* No, it's not a racist policy because vaccination rates by race are actually the same

* No, it's not a racist policy, because I've changed my mind about what makes a policy racist

* No, it's not a racist policy, because [insert an explanation that reconciles a 'no' with the plain understanding of Kendi's earlier published words]

I struggle to understand what you think discussion threads are about, if not to discuss ideas. I don't consider it 'time wasting' to start a thread that might challenge my own understanding of something.

 

[Politesse]

For the record, I do think that a vaccine mandate in the United States is almost certain to be a racist policy, because policing in the United States has a strongly racist bias. If anyone is going to face any real consequences for vaccine defiance, they will almost certainly be disproportionately Black, Latino, or Native, much the same way that a BLM protest is just about the only place in the country where you can be arrested for not wearing a mask during a mask mandate.

 

[Metaphor]

I disagree that a mandate would affect unvaccinated people negatively. At the very least, their physical health will be improved by getting the mandated vaccine, and the mandate has led to more people getting vaccinated. Please provide evidence that they would be negatively affected in other ways, and that they outweigh the physical benefit. Given that the physical negative with not getting a vaccine because it was not mandated includes the possibility of death, I think that is going to be a hard sell.

I think we might have had different ideas in mind when talking about a 'mandate'. I did not think you meant kidnapping people and forcibly injecting them. Is that what you meant?

I don't think it has been racist either. Given that the vaccine rollout being racist is a necessary condition for the mandate to be racist as well, I think we both agree that the answer to the question in your OP title is "No, vaccine mandates are not racist."

No, it is a sufficient condition from my perspective. It is not a necessary condition from Kendi's perspective, if his perspective is the same as it was when he wrote and published How to be an Antiracist. He plainly states:

https://library.fandm.edu/c.php?g=1045768&p=7588278

"A racist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial inequity between racial groups. By policy, I mean written and unwritten laws, rules, procedures, processes, regulations, and guidelines that govern people." (p. 18)

A vaccine mandate that confines unvaccinated people to their home would sustain a racial inequity between black and white people.

Then by Kendi's measure the mandate is not a racist policy because the rollout itself was not a racist policy. We also have a video of Kendi himself saying that it is not racist. Seems like any way you look at it, we have arrived at the answer to your question in just 4 pages. This has to be some sort of record...

Kendi's answer conflicts with his earlier definition of a racist policy.

 

[KeepTalking]

I disagree that a mandate would affect unvaccinated people negatively. At the very least, their physical health will be improved by getting the mandated vaccine, and the mandate has led to more people getting vaccinated. Please provide evidence that they would be negatively affected in other ways, and that they outweigh the physical benefit. Given that the physical negative with not getting a vaccine because it was not mandated includes the possibility of death, I think that is going to be a hard sell.

I think we might have had different ideas in mind when talking about a 'mandate'. I did not think you meant kidnapping people and forcibly injecting them. Is that what you meant?

Absolutely not, as that is quite ridiculous. I am talking about the current mandate in the US, which has caused an increase in vaccinated persons, and has not resulted in a single person being placed under house arrest.

I don't think it has been racist either. Given that the vaccine rollout being racist is a necessary condition for the mandate to be racist as well, I think we both agree that the answer to the question in your OP title is "No, vaccine mandates are not racist."

No, it is a sufficient condition from my perspective.

If the vaccine rollout itself was not racist, how could mandating everyone participate in that process be racist?

It is not a necessary condition from Kendi's perspective

To me, it is logically a necessary condition, perhaps you can convince me otherwise.

A vaccine mandate that confines unvaccinated people to their home would sustain a racial inequity between black and white people.

The current mandate in the US does not do that. I am not aware of a vaccine mandate being seriously proposed that does confine the unvaccinated to their homes.

Then by Kendi's measure the mandate is not a racist policy because the rollout itself was not a racist policy. We also have a video of Kendi himself saying that it is not racist. Seems like any way you look at it, we have arrived at the answer to your question in just 4 pages. This has to be some sort of record...

Kendi's answer conflicts with his earlier definition of a racist policy.

In that case, perhaps you should consider that he is clarifying his position now.

 

[TomC]

"No" seems like a pretty clear answer to me, but then, I'm not arguing in bad faith to begin with.

If his answer were "yes", would you agree with him?

[MENTION=2587]Politesse[/MENTION];

I was wondering about something that had Metaphor upset awhile back.
Did Kendri express an opinion about making BIPOC eligible for vaccination right off, like Vermont did? Metaphor seemed to think that was also racism.
Tom

 

[TomC]

So, I don't think the vaccine mandate is a 'racist' policy, but arithmetically speaking, there will be proportionately more black people being negatively psychologically, physically, socially, and economically harmed by it.

I don't really think that's true.

The goal of mass vaccination is herd immunity. If we could get 95% of people(who don't have medical contraindications) vaccinated, we'd be there. The economy and everything else could open up and regain normalcy. That's really good for everyone, including the unvaccinated. C19 would just be another virus, like cold/flu virus issues.

I think that the benefits to poor and marginalized people in particular would be huge.

Tom

ETA ~I'm still opposed to government imposed individual mandates. I just don't want to give those jackasses that much power. But requiring people to have a vaccination document to work or mingle with the general public I'm fine with.~

 

[Metaphor]

If the vaccine rollout itself was not racist, how could mandating everyone participate in that process be racist?

I said, if the vaccine rollout was racist, then that is a sufficient condition for a vaccine mandate to be racist.

To me, it is logically a necessary condition, perhaps you can convince me otherwise.

If Kendi's own words, which I've quoted repeatedly, does not convince you, there is nothing else I can say.

"A racist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial inequity between racial groups. By policy, I mean written and unwritten laws, rules, procedures, processes, regulations, and guidelines that govern people." (p. 18)

The current mandate in the US does not do that. I am not aware of a vaccine mandate being seriously proposed that does confine the unvaccinated to their homes.

Toni proposed one, and got immediate support from several people on this board. There's a lot that can become part of a vaccine mandate and of course it can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But, almost any action that treats the vaccinated more favourably than the unvaccinated will create or sustain the race inequity that Kendi talks about.

In that case, perhaps you should consider that he is clarifying his position now.

It wouldn't be a 'clarification', it would be a major revision to his previous position. I would expect acknowledgment of that.

 

[KeepTalking]

I said, if the vaccine rollout was racist, then that is a sufficient condition for a vaccine mandate to be racist.

You have agreed that the vaccine rollout was not racist, therefor that condition does not exist.

If Kendi's own words, which I've quoted repeatedly, does not convince you, there is nothing else I can say.

Kendi does not agree that vaccine mandates are racist by his own words when asked that specific question. If that dos not convince you that we are all in agreement that the vaccine mandate is not racist, there is nothing else I can say.

The current mandate in the US does not do that. I am not aware of a vaccine mandate being seriously proposed that does confine the unvaccinated to their homes.

Toni proposed one, and got immediate support from several people on this board. There's a lot that can become part of a vaccine mandate and of course it can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Sorry, I must have missed that, but you and I both know that we are talking about mandates that have been enacted, or have a non-zero chance of being implemented.

But, almost any action that treats the vaccinated more favourably than the unvaccinated will create or sustain the race inequity that Kendi talks about.

I do not agree, and "almost"? It seems like you are not entirely convinced by your own argument either. Further, I think we can take it as a given that the mandate being discussed in the clip with Kendi was the US Vaccine Mandate, and not some made up mandate that has no chance of being enacted anywhere. So, you would need to show us specifically how the US mandate causes racial inequity in order to show that Kendi is contradicting himself.

In that case, perhaps you should consider that he is clarifying his position now.

It wouldn't be a 'clarification', it would be a major revision to his previous position. I would expect acknowledgment of that.

I think it clarifies his position on the topic fairly well. You have not shown that the vaccine mandate will lead to racial disparity, so I don't think you have any cause to say it was anything more than a clarification.

 

[Metaphor]

You have agreed that the vaccine rollout was not racist, therefor that condition does not exist.

There are other ways for the mandate to be racist; I am simply stating that a racist vaccine rollout would be sufficient, not necessary.

Kendi does not agree that vaccine mandates are racist by his own words when asked that specific question. If that dos not convince you that we are all in agreement that the vaccine mandate is not racist, there is nothing else I can say.

It convinces me that Kendi said it was not racist.

However, using the definition for a racist policy that Kendi previously espoused (and has not disavowed, as far as I can tell), it would be a racist policy.

Sorry, I must have missed that, but you and I both know that we are talking about mandates that have been enacted, or have a non-zero chance of being implemented.

You and I both do not 'know' that. Indeed, I am not talking about only vaccine mandates that have been enacted, but on the entire spectrum of possibilities, including what I regard as an extreme version supported by multiple people on this board.

I do not agree, and "almost"? It seems like you are not entirely convinced by your own argument either.

Any mandate that treats the unvaxxed less favourably than the vaxxed will be racist by Kendi's definition of a racist policy.

There might be some kind of vaccine mandate that does not treat the unvaxxed less favourably, but I don't know what that would look like.

Further, I think we can take it as a given that the mandate being discussed in the clip with Kendi was the US Vaccine Mandate, and not some made up mandate that has no chance of being enacted anywhere. So, you would need to show us specifically how the US mandate causes racial inequity in order to show that Kendi is contradicting himself.

I do not know when Kendi said that nor what the mandate was when he did. Vaccine mandates are different in every US State, are they not?

Anyway: let's take a mild version of a vaccine mandate: the unvaccinated cannot go to indoor entertainment venues. Let's say that's the only restriction. That would create an inequity between black and white Americans on their access to entertainment venues.

I think it clarifies his position on the topic fairly well. You have not shown that the vaccine mandate will lead to racial disparity, so I don't think you have any cause to say it was anything more than a clarification.

The vaccine mandate would of course lead to a disparity, because black and white people are vaccinated at different rates. Any mandate that treats vaxxed and unvaxxed people must inevitably, therefore, create a disparity between black and white people.

 

[KeepTalking]

There are other ways for the mandate to be racist; I am simply stating that a racist vaccine rollout would be sufficient, not necessary.

While agreeing that the vaccine rollout was not racist. Tilting at windmills comes to mind, but at least Don Quixote thought he was actually slaying giants.

It convinces me that Kendi said it was not racist.

I'm not sure why that is not enough for you.

However, using the definition for a racist policy that Kendi previously espoused (and has not disavowed, as far as I can tell), it would be a racist policy.

You have not demonstrated that.

Sorry, I must have missed that, but you and I both know that we are talking about mandates that have been enacted, or have a non-zero chance of being implemented.

You and I both do not 'know' that. Indeed,

Well, you should, because I clarified that in the following post in response to your ridiculous question about mandates that involve kidnapping people:

Absolutely not, as that is quite ridiculous. I am talking about the current mandate in the US, which has caused an increase in vaccinated persons, and has not resulted in a single person being placed under house arrest.

I guess if you are still talking about mythical mandates that involve kidnapping people, we are going to be at loggerheads.

I am not talking about only vaccine mandates that have been enacted, but on the entire spectrum of possibilities, including what I regard as an extreme version supported by multiple people on this board.

Well, if you are going to talk about the entire spectrum of possibilities, no matter how realistic that they actually be enacted, then we are going to have then entire spectrum of answers, from "no", to "maybe", all the way to "yes". Congratulations, you then prove absolutely nothing about the real world.

I do not agree, and "almost"? It seems like you are not entirely convinced by your own argument either.

Any mandate that treats the unvaxxed less favourably than the vaxxed will be racist by Kendi's definition of a racist policy.

There might be some kind of vaccine mandate that does not treat the unvaxxed less favourably, but I don't know what that would look like.

It would be a vaccine mandate which mandates that everyone should get a vaccine, therefor increasing vaccination rates for the previously unvaxxed, who then become the vaxxed and have improved outcomes.

Further, I think we can take it as a given that the mandate being discussed in the clip with Kendi was the US Vaccine Mandate, and not some made up mandate that has no chance of being enacted anywhere. So, you would need to show us specifically how the US mandate causes racial inequity in order to show that Kendi is contradicting himself.

I do not know when Kendi said that nor what the mandate was when he did.

In that short clip, he did not say that, however, it can be inferred from the context of where the Q&A with him took place.

Vaccine mandates are different in every US State, are they not?

Previously that was the case, however, the Biden administration has issued a mandate for the entirety of the US. There are some States that are fighting against the mandate.

Anyway: let's take a mild version of a vaccine mandate: the unvaccinated cannot go to indoor entertainment venues.

That is not a vaccine mandate. A vaccine mandate would be a mandate that requires people to get vaccinated.

I think it clarifies his position on the topic fairly well. You have not shown that the vaccine mandate will lead to racial disparity, so I don't think you have any cause to say it was anything more than a clarification.

The vaccine mandate would of course lead to a disparity, because black and white people are vaccinated at different rates. Any mandate that treats vaxxed and unvaxxed people must inevitably, therefore, create a disparity between black and white people.

Vaccine mandates have been proven to increase the number of vaccinated people.

Forbes: Covid-19 Vaccine Mandates Are Working—Here’s The Proof

Forbes is not a liberal publication to say the least. Given that the mandates increase vaccination rates, then the outcomes will be improved for blacks as well as whites.

 

[Metaphor]

I'm not sure why that is not enough for you.

Kendi saying the vaccine mandate is not racist is enough to convince me that Kendi said it was not racist.

It is 'not enough' for me because I want to know how Kendi can have that view, given its conflict with his previous view about what constitutes a racist policy.

You have not demonstrated that.

I have explained it more than once.

I guess if you are still talking about mythical mandates that involve kidnapping people, we are going to be at loggerheads.

No, the mandates do not have to kill the unvaccinated. They simply must create or sustain a racial inequity to be a racist policy, according to Kendi. Since black and white people have differing rates of vaccination, it must be the case that a mandate that treats vaccinated people differently to unvaccinated people will create a racial inequity.

Well, if you are going to talk about the entire spectrum of possibilities, no matter how realistic that they actually be enacted, then we are going to have then entire spectrum of answers, from "no", to "maybe", all the way to "yes". Congratulations, you then prove absolutely nothing about the real world.

Any mandate that treats the vaccinated differently from the unvaccinated will create a racial inequity.

It would be a vaccine mandate which mandates that everyone should get a vaccine, therefor increasing vaccination rates for the previously unvaxxed, who then become the vaxxed and have improved outcomes.

Saying everyone should get vaxxed, with no social or government punishment or restrictions for not doing it, is not something I would call a vaccine mandate. But if that's what you mean by mandate, then we've been arguing at cross-purposes.

Previously that was the case, however, the Biden administration has issued a mandate for the entirety of the US. There are some States that are fighting against the mandate.

And does the mandate punish or restrict the unvaccinated compared to the vaccinated? If that is the case, then the mandate is a racist policy according to Kendi's definition of a racist policy.

That is not a vaccine mandate. A vaccine mandate would be a mandate that requires people to get vaccinated.

"Requires" or "should"? I'm deeply confused. When you say Biden implemented a national vaccine mandate, what did you mean? You don't mean that the government is going to kidnap people and forcibly inject them. So, do you mean "requires people to become vaccinated, or face certain punishments and restrictions"? Wouldn't being kept out of entertainment venues be a restriction?

The vaccine mandate would of course lead to a disparity, because black and white people are vaccinated at different rates. Any mandate that treats vaxxed and unvaxxed people must inevitably, therefore, create a disparity between black and white people.

Vaccine mandates have been proven to increase the number of vaccinated people.

Forbes: Covid-19 Vaccine Mandates Are Working—Here’s The Proof

Forbes is not a liberal publication to say the least. Given that the mandates increase vaccination rates, then the outcomes will be improved for blacks as well as whites.

You did not address my point at all. A vaccine mandate that successfully reduces the gap between white and black vaccination rates will have reduced that gap, but it will have created many other inequities by race. The inequities will arise from the fact that unvaccinated people are treated differently to the vaccinated people.

 

[KeepTalking]

Kendi saying the vaccine mandate is not racist is enough to convince me that Kendi said it was not racist.

It is 'not enough' for me because I want to know how Kendi can have that view, given its conflict with his previous view about what constitutes a racist policy.

I would suspect that Kendi, like myself, does not agree with you that the vaccine mandate is a racist policy. I won't pretend to speak for him, though.

I have explained it more than once.

You have provided an explanation, but you have not demonstrated that your explanation is correct.

I guess if you are still talking about mythical mandates that involve kidnapping people, we are going to be at loggerheads.

No, the mandates do not have to kill the unvaccinated.

I made no mention of mandates killing the unvaccinated.

Well, if you are going to talk about the entire spectrum of possibilities, no matter how realistic that they actually be enacted, then we are going to have then entire spectrum of answers, from "no", to "maybe", all the way to "yes". Congratulations, you then prove absolutely nothing about the real world.

Any mandate that treats the vaccinated differently from the unvaccinated will create a racial inequity.

Vaccinated, and unvaccinated are not races, therefor that cannot be the case.

It would be a vaccine mandate which mandates that everyone should get a vaccine, therefor increasing vaccination rates for the previously unvaxxed, who then become the vaxxed and have improved outcomes.

Saying everyone should get vaxxed, with no social or government punishment or restrictions for not doing it, is not something I would call a vaccine mandate. But if that's what you mean by mandate, then we've been arguing at cross-purposes.

Previously that was the case, however, the Biden administration has issued a mandate for the entirety of the US. There are some States that are fighting against the mandate.

And does the mandate punish or restrict the unvaccinated compared to the vaccinated? If that is the case, then the mandate is a racist policy according to Kendi's definition of a racist policy.

That is not a vaccine mandate. A vaccine mandate would be a mandate that requires people to get vaccinated.

"Requires" or "should"? I'm deeply confused. When you say Biden implemented a national vaccine mandate, what did you mean? You don't mean that the government is going to kidnap people and forcibly inject them. So, do you mean "requires people to become vaccinated, or face certain punishments and restrictions"? Wouldn't being kept out of entertainment venues be a restriction?

You can read all about it here:
AP - Sweeping new vaccine mandates for 100 million Americans

I hope that helps to remove your confusion on the topic.

The vaccine mandate would of course lead to a disparity, because black and white people are vaccinated at different rates. Any mandate that treats vaxxed and unvaxxed people must inevitably, therefore, create a disparity between black and white people.

Vaccine mandates have been proven to increase the number of vaccinated people.

Forbes: Covid-19 Vaccine Mandates Are Working—Here’s The Proof

Forbes is not a liberal publication to say the least. Given that the mandates increase vaccination rates, then the outcomes will be improved for blacks as well as whites.

You did not address my point at all. A vaccine mandate that successfully reduces the gap between white and black vaccination rates will have reduced that gap, but it will have created many other inequities by race. The inequities will arise from the fact that unvaccinated people are treated differently to the vaccinated people.

Now that you know what the vaccine mandate entails (provided you have read the above link about it), perhaps you can demonstrate how the mandate creates "many other inequities by race". Then you will need to show that those hypothetical inequities outweigh the benefit of an increase in vaccination rates that result from the mandate.

 

[Metaphor]

Vaccinated, and unvaccinated are not races, therefor that cannot be the case.

Of course it can and must be the case. Black and white people have different vaccination rates, so any policy that treats vaccinated and unvaccinated people differently must also create or sustain a racial inequity, and would be a racist policy by Kendi's own standards.

You can read all about it here:
AP - Sweeping new vaccine mandates for 100 million Americans

I hope that helps to remove your confusion on the topic.

Very good. I will name one element of the mandate:

Biden is also requiring vaccination for employees of the executive branch and contractors who do business with the federal government — with no option to test out. That covers several million more workers.

This will deepen the racial inequity between in employment between black and white workers. Black people are less likely to be vaccinated, and therefore they will lose out on opportunities in doing business with the federal government.

Now that you know what the vaccine mandate entails (provided you have read the above link about it), perhaps you can demonstrate how the mandate creates "many other inequities by race". Then you will need to show that those hypothetical inequities outweigh the benefit of an increase in vaccination rates that result from the mandate.

I have detailed above an example.

I do not have to do any calculation of 'outweighing the benefit'. It is not part of Kendi's definition of whether a policy is racist or not.

 

[KeepTalking]

Of course it can and must be the case.

Of course it cannot be the case that "Any mandate that treats the vaccinated differently from the unvaccinated will create a racial inequity" as a mandate that does not create racial inequity would not create racial inequity, whether it treats vaccinated and unvaccinated people incorrectly. You are loading too many assumptions into that statement for it to be correct.

Black and white people have different vaccination rates, so any policy that treats vaccinated and unvaccinated people differently must also create or sustain a racial inequity, and would be a racist policy by Kendi's own standards.

Not if the mandate does not increase racial inequity, or improves racial equity.

Very good. I will name one element of the mandate:

Biden is also requiring vaccination for employees of the executive branch and contractors who do business with the federal government — with no option to test out. That covers several million more workers.

This will deepen the racial inequity between in employment between black and white workers. Black people are less likely to be vaccinated, and therefore they will lose out on opportunities in doing business with the federal government.

You have not demonstrated that, you have only asserted it. If the result of the mandate is that racial equity remains the same, or is improved, then your assertion is incorrect. For example, if more black people than white people get vaccinated as a result of the mandate, then racial equity will be improved.

Now that you know what the vaccine mandate entails (provided you have read the above link about it), perhaps you can demonstrate how the mandate creates "many other inequities by race". Then you will need to show that those hypothetical inequities outweigh the benefit of an increase in vaccination rates that result from the mandate.

I have detailed above an example.

You have merely asserted the thing that you have asserted over and over again. You have demonstrated nothing other than the persistence of belief that your assertions are facts. I disagree.

I do not have to do any calculation of 'outweighing the benefit'. It is not part of Kendi's definition of whether a policy is racist or not.

How can a policy be racist if it is a net benefit to the race in question? If you cannot show that the policy negatively impacts a race more than it positively impacts them, then you have not shown that it is a racist policy.

 

[Metaphor]

Of course it cannot be the case that "Any mandate that treats the vaccinated differently from the unvaccinated will create a racial inequity" as a mandate that does not create racial inequity would not create racial inequity, whether it treats vaccinated and unvaccinated people incorrectly. You are loading too many assumptions into that statement for it to be correct.

I assume above you mean 'differently', not 'incorrectly'.

I hesitate to use another analogy, because I really think the logic above should be self-evident, but I will illustrate a different way.

Imagine if I defined a sexist policy as any policy that creates or sustains a gap between the sexes.

Let's say my new policy is: the federal government gives $100/week, tax-free and not means-tested, to every adult in America who is 175cm or taller.

This policy would treat those 175cm or taller differently to adults less than 175cm. It would also be a sexist policy by the sexist policy standard defined above. It would have to be, because men would be more likely to get the payment, because men are taller than women.

Not if the mandate does not increase racial inequity, or improves racial equity.

It would increase racial inequity on many dimensions. If it reduced racial inequity, Kendi would call it antiracist.

Now, any policy could have multiple effects, including what is regarded as the main effect plus any additional effects. I'm not sure how Kendi would classify such a policy.

You have not demonstrated that, you have only asserted it. If the result of the mandate is that racial equity remains the same, or is improved, then your assertion is incorrect. For example, if more black people than white people get vaccinated as a result of the mandate, then racial equity will be improved.

It is already the case that the policy is racist, according to Kendi's definition. The day this vaccine mandate came in, black people were less likely to be vaccinated than white people. This creates differential access to federal business. It could be argued that black people can control this by getting vaccinated and removing the differential access, but the fact that the differential access is built in and requires a higher percentage of black people (compared to white people) to do something they otherwise would not have done in order to get access to federal business.

You have merely asserted the thing that you have asserted over and over again. You have demonstrated nothing other than the persistence of belief that your assertions are facts. I disagree.

I don't know how otherwise to explain it to you.

How can a policy be racist if it is a net benefit to the race in question?

Kendi does not mention 'net benefit' in his definition, which I have provided multiple times.

Also, am I to accept that what a benefit is, is what you decide a benefit is?

If you cannot show that the policy negatively impacts a race more than it positively impacts them, then you have not shown that it is a racist policy.

Kendi does not mention 'net benefit' in his definition, which I have provided multiple times.

 

[KeepTalking]

I assume above you mean 'differently', not 'incorrectly'.

You are correct, thank you for pointing out my mistake.

I hesitate to use another analogy,

You shouldn't have bothered, it is not an apt analogy.

because I really think the logic above should be self-evident,

Likewise, I think my logic should be self-evident.

but I will illustrate a different way.

Imagine if I defined a sexist policy as any policy that creates or sustains a gap between the sexes.

Let's say my new policy is: the federal government gives $100/week, tax-free and not means-tested, to every adult in America who is 175cm or taller.

This policy would treat those 175cm or taller differently to adults less than 175cm. It would also be a sexist policy by the sexist policy standard defined above. It would have to be, because men would be more likely to get the payment, because men are taller than women.

Your analogy is not apt, as it fails in the case where the mandate applies to everyone, and not only to a certain set of people. A better analogy would be one in which the federal government mandates that everyone is given $100, which would not create a gap between the sexes.

It would increase racial inequity on many dimensions.

You have not shown that to be the case.

If it reduced racial inequity, Kendi would call it antiracist.

And? Are you trying to convince me that the mandate is anti-racist? Because you are doing a good job of it.

Now, any policy could have multiple effects, including what is regarded as the main effect plus any additional effects. I'm not sure how Kendi would classify such a policy.

If you cared to research that question you might just find his answer, much like his answer to this thread topic was there for someone who just cared enough to go looking for it.

You have not demonstrated that, you have only asserted it. If the result of the mandate is that racial equity remains the same, or is improved, then your assertion is incorrect. For example, if more black people than white people get vaccinated as a result of the mandate, then racial equity will be improved.

It is already the case that the policy is racist, according to Kendi's definition. The day this vaccine mandate came in, black people were less likely to be vaccinated than white people. This creates differential access to federal business. It could be argued that black people can control this by getting vaccinated and removing the differential access, but the fact that the differential access is built in and requires a higher percentage of black people (compared to white people) to do something they otherwise would not have done in order to get access to federal business.

You still have not educated yourself on the Biden mandate. It did not go into effect immediately, therefor your above supposition that it is already the case that the policy is racist is unfounded.

You have merely asserted the thing that you have asserted over and over again. You have demonstrated nothing other than the persistence of belief that your assertions are facts. I disagree.

I don't know how otherwise to explain it to you.

I am not asking you to explain it, I already understand your explanation. I am asking you to demonstrate that your explanation is valid. You have failed to demonstrate that.

How can a policy be racist if it is a net benefit to the race in question?

Kendi does not mention 'net benefit' in his definition, which I have provided multiple times.

Yes, you have. So perhaps you can explain to me how something which is a net benefit to a race can be said to be increasing racial inequity with regard to that race.

Also, am I to accept that what a benefit is, is what you decide a benefit is?

Are you not asking me to accept that what you have decided Kendi meant is what Kendi actually meant, even in the face of his own statement to the contrary?

If you cannot show that the policy negatively impacts a race more than it positively impacts them, then you have not shown that it is a racist policy.

Kendi does not mention 'net benefit' in his definition, which I have provided multiple times.

I never said he did. I think it stands to reason that something that is a 'net benefit' to a race is not something that can be said to be a racist policy with regard to that race.

 

[JohnG]

I've noticed that conservatives and libertarians (right and left) like to compare policy to the pandemic - as if the response to a global pandemic is somehow the same as a voting law.