No, you're not, but thank you for asking. As previously, but not quite as badly, you confuse criticism of the worst aspects of the process with endorsement of the person targeted by the process, and don't mention the worst aspects. I don't think people who run stop signs should be executed by firing squad, but I also don't think people should be allowed to run stop signs with no consequence. Me objecting to firing squads as the way to solve the danger to other pedestrians and motorists does not mean that I think pedestrians who get hit by stop-sign-runners didn't deserve to live. I just mean that the way the problem is being solved creates its own problems. This is not a complicated idea. It's not the very very simplest idea, but it's not complicated. Until you acknowledge the very very worst aspects of the cancel culture mob aspects of the Adams situation, you have not characterized my argument well enough because that is my point.

You also aren't characterizing my point here well enough. This is the straw man you are arguing against: "Is it fair to say that what Black people need is an education to make money and that will solve our problems[?]"

But I explicitly said (emphasis added here): "More education = complete fix? Income = everything that matters? No. But "dramatically better"? Yeah."

You seem to be flat-out denying the data, too. At first you say, "I did not say that an education would not improve your earning potential." But then you say, "That's why education isn't the solution to the reason why we are poor." So...you didn't say it but you should have? Or what?

You also claimed you had data to the contrary, but you never showed any. You gave some anecdotes, shared some reasoning. No data.

I'm all for inclusion, being welcoming, all that. But if education improves things in a big way, I say: do it! Do it now. Don't wait! Recognize how big a deal it is while also recognizing that it's not everything. And do it now. Or, heck, support the efforts that are already in place!

I find it utterly preposterous that supposedly highly liberal states in the U.S. act like traditional local-property-tax-based funding structure for schools is some sort of fundamental law of nature when their legislatures could just pass a law and BOOM! Suddenly they're actually living up to their values of equity by funding schools equally per-pupil, with extra funding in case of extra need (e.g. number of students benefitting from a robust school lunch program, and maybe a second meal too). How is it that Republican-majority states are the clear winners here?! (See, for instance, https://wallethub.com/edu/e/states-equitable-school-districts/76723.)

But I find it equally preposterous that you think that despite it obviously being the right thing to do from a moral standpoint and there being data indicating that it will make a major difference in a key metric of racial disparity, that you feel a need to argue against me saying that this would be a great thing to do.