>>1847164Yeah the problem is obvious. There's input, a system, and output. The fundamental assumption is that the input is equal, so when the output is different from the input the only conclusion is that the system favours results that match the output. Since that's the only conclusion possible given the assumption that the input is equal, it means no actual investigation into the workings of the system are necessary. In reality what you encounter are systems that give an advantage to a particular group, and the advantaged group still under performs despite their advantage, and the system is incorrectly written off as disadvantaging that group.
Of course, you don't even have to state that a race is outright superior or inferior to prove the idea that races are outright equal is wrong. Myth #4, "the differences between people are smaller than the differences among people" would still adequately explain the difference in output despite a fair system because systems necessarily manifest as averages across a large population. To disprove the idea that the output not perfectly mirroring the input is indicative of racism (or any prejudice) in the system all you have to do is indicate that the input people aren't equal in absolutely any capacity, let alone a categorical hierarchy of one race being superior/inferior (regardless of whether one is).
Of course, even without bringing up all of this race data, the idea that a lack of 1:1 input and output indicates a prejudiced system is internally inconsistent for other reasons. It means that in systemic outliers where minorities are over represented either those systems favour minorities, which goes against the marxist narrative, or these minorities were so exceptional they overcame the system that is in favour of the majority (which contradicts everyone being equal AND means that the system itself still favours the majority, and that the outcome isn't indicative of the system's biases).
