> > Strawman.

> Can we skip this kind of snippy arguing please?

If you don't start off by willfully mischaracterizing your opponent's argument in order to be able to more easily refute it, I think you'll find that they accuse you of this less.

I think you're just willfully missing the point.

Ideally, you'd just lend money to the people who will pay you back. Unfortunately, we can't predict this perfectly. Adding race, or proxies for race, to the things you consider improves your predictions somewhat.

Nope it was a completely honest question and what I considered a constructive line of thought. You should assume good faith. I asked about two competing definitions of what is racist and you seemed to prefer one over the other.

And what have I claimed to "easily refute" exactly? More like I ran with the definition, and considered how to address the problem as stated. I said more features were needed, I didn't say enough features were currently used. You keep pointing to a dichotomy between perfect and flawed, while I was talking about relative improvements. There isn't even necessarily a disagreement there.