|
Obdicut posted:
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 06:16 |
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:That's ironic. I can think of few things more utopian than reparations. Oh, I can think of lots of things that are more utopian, like full communism, which is way more utopian. It is true that the level of racism in the US means that reparations are not at all possible now, but as the Coates piece said, even discussing it now is utterly taboo and how that impedes progress.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:It is true that the level of racism in the US means that reparations are not at all possible now, but as the Coates piece said, even discussing it now is utterly taboo and how that impedes progress. This is an interesting statement. Does it mean that if racism were gone in the US, you would still be in favor of reparations? If so, against whom would they be levied?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:This is an interesting statement. Does it mean that if racism were gone in the US, you would still be in favor of reparations? If so, against whom would they be levied? No. Your gimmick is real dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
Aha ha, but here's the trick: the system you're relying on to the close the gaps for you is not one that you own. It's owned by the same people, well the descendants of, the people who profited from the bounty of exploitation. And I don't mean 'white', I mean 'rich'. They are the ones who will decide how much is paid, who pays, and to whom. They're the ones holding the gun. Not you. Still, good luck with the reform.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:No. My gimmick? I'm asking questions about the myriad problems, - moral, practical, and philosophical - with the concept of assessing collective guilt against a group of people for a crime committed generations before they were born. One of the Ds in D&D is debate. I can fish out a definition of the word 'debate' for you, if you are unfamiliar with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Aha ha, but here's the trick: the system you're relying on to the close the gaps for you is not one that you own. It's owned by the same people, well the descendants of, the people who profited from the bounty of exploitation. And I don't mean 'white', I mean 'rich'. They are the ones who will decide how much is paid, who pays, and to whom. They're the ones holding the gun. Not you. Still, good luck with the reform. Thanks! Have fun sitting around hoping for full communism and doing gently caress-all to improve things otherwise. TheImmigrant posted:My gimmick? I'm asking questions about the myriad problems, - moral, practical, and philosophical - with the concept of assessing collective guilt against a group of people for a crime committed generations before they were born. One of the Ds in D&D is debate. I can fish out a definition of the word 'debate' for you, if you are unfamiliar with it. I mean the gimmick where you are whatever you need to be at any moment: you've claimed to be black, straight, gay, etc. when useful. Anyway, I answered your question, so what are you whinging about? You also seem to weirdly think this is about collective guilt, which it isn't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I mean the gimmick where you are whatever you need to be at any moment: you've claimed to be black, straight, gay, etc. when useful. You must be American. Americans don't 'do' irony. quote:You also seem to weirdly think this is about collective guilt, which it isn't. It absolutely is about collective guilt (and collective credit). In making the case for reparations, there is an implicit debt. In levying reparations, you first must identify a debtor. The only possible way to identify a debtor for a debt incurred before anyone today was alive is to allocate collective guilt.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I mean the gimmick where you are whatever you need to be at any moment: you've claimed to be black, straight, gay, etc. when useful. which shouldn't matter to the merits of the argument, but
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 16:33
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
TheImmigrant posted:It absolutely is about collective guilt (and collective credit). In making the case for reparations, there is an implicit debt. In levying reparations, you first must identify a debtor. The only possible way to identify a debtor for a debt incurred before anyone today was alive is to allocate collective guilt. or you could be a complete moron who doesn't understand the word reparations and thinks "redistributing wealth to the bottom" == "reparations" because the bottom happens to include loads of black people
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
rudatron posted:But a study is different from actual policy. Hell, I'm all for studies, ignorance is never a good idea. But the reaction to something like that study isn't necessarily going to go the way you want. I mean think about the Obama presidency - Obama has been an absolutely fantastic guy, very centrist, you couldn't ask for a better head of state. For basically any country, definitely head and shoulders above almost every other US president. What the hell are you going on about? The right will bitch no matter what is done. This post reads out like gibberish.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Oh, I can think of lots of things that are more utopian, like full communism, which is way more utopian. I think framing the debate in terms of 'Reparations' is part of the challenge. It clearly means very different things to different people. To Coates and others it may simply be about recognising there are issues, and having a discussion about race and what we can do to tackle them. But to others, its more associated with politically toxic (to them) ideas like direct payments, collective guilt, etc. The question is how do you change the conversation? How do you get past those associations? Is it a matter of moving away from the term Reparations, and focusing on causes that are more likely to enjoy greater political traction (like police racism), in the hope of changing mindsets? I ask because there seems to be general agreement that institutional racism means that progress isn't going to happen, but there also seems a genuine dearth of productive suggestions on where to go from here?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:
You mean "humorously" pointing out that none of these personal states should allow greater weight to an argument. Presumably if a person believed that the value of the argument is wrapped up in the argument instead of the messenger, the entire gimmick should be easily ignored. If not, then it opens up to a question of why is the person saying the argument suddenly more valuable by virtue of such a personal state (assuming that it is separate from speaking from an experience).
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
When you say reparations a lot of people think that just means giving every black person a check, paid for by a tax on white people. If it actually means improving poor black neighborhoods and making cops stop shooting black people, there really oughtta be a different word.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:You must be American. Americans don't 'do' irony. Nah, you've just claimed various statuses to support whatever argument you were making at the time. Also, Bob and Ray. quote:It absolutely is about collective guilt (and collective credit). In making the case for reparations, there is an implicit debt. In levying reparations, you first must identify a debtor. The only possible way to identify a debtor for a debt incurred before anyone today was alive is to allocate collective guilt. Guilt is a moralistic word. What reparations are for is to address an imbalance that is the result of long-standing policies. If one didn't support those policies, but just benefited from them, there isn't any guilt. Maybe you're looking for the word responsibility? blowfish posted:which shouldn't matter to the merits of the argument, but he's not offering an argument. Tigey posted:I think framing the debate in terms of 'Reparations' is part of the challenge. It clearly means very different things to different people. To Coates and others it may simply be about recognising there are issues, and having a discussion about race and what we can do to tackle them. But to others, its more associated with politically toxic (to them) ideas like direct payments, collective guilt, etc. I don't agree that institutional racism means progress isn't going to happen. Institutional racism has always been with us, and we have managed to make progress nonetheless. Other than that, changing what we call it so as to make people more comfortable defeats part of the purpose of it. And we don't have to choose one or another cause, either, at least not in pure rhetoric. In terms of action, yes, I'd agree working on police brutality is better than actually attempting to get reparations, but attempting to get people to talk about reparations is still important.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:What the hell are you going on about? The right will bitch no matter what is done. This post reads out like gibberish.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
boom boom boom posted:When you say reparations a lot of people think that just means giving every black person a check, paid for by a tax on white people. Socialism brings up the same connotations for a lot of people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Socialism brings up the same connotations for a lot of people. Whoa whoa whoa, as in people might be agreeing past each other here? In D&D? Well I never.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Nah, you've just claimed various statuses to support whatever argument you were making at the time. Also, Bob and Ray. No, I've made absurd and transparently false claims as to my identity to lampoon others' claim to Greater Truth because of their claimed identities. On the Internet, anyone can be anything when it comes to identity, and it is absurd to assert that one has greater authority on racial issues because of an unverifiable self-identification. I have no idea who Bob and Ray are. Are they Black? Are they reparations creditors?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:No, I've made absurd and transparently false claims as to my identity to lampoon others' claim to Greater Truth because of their claimed identities. On the Internet, anyone can be anything when it comes to identity, and it is absurd to assert that one has greater authority on racial issues because of an unverifiable self-identification. Even if that were believable, the rational response to that would be not doing it yourself--'lampooning' contributes to the problem, if it is a problem. Still, I doubt you never claim any sort of knowledge based on your own experiences, so it's probably just a convenient way to attack people more than anything. quote:I have no idea who Bob and Ray are. Are they Black? Are they reparations creditors? They're amazing American comedians steeped in rich irony. Do you understand the point I was making differentiating between guilt and responsibility?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
New TNC article on the subject: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/bernie-sanders-liberal-imagination/425022/ I think he's being a toxic rear end in a top hat, whatever the racial justice equivalent of a trot is here. The only way his anodyne bullshit makes sense is if you assume peoples' views are not changed by their environment, an old fixation of certain parts of black nationalism, notably. Which isn't bad in and of itself, just contrary to reality. Equivocating half of Bernie's platform with the '90s dem idea of an improving economy meaning as a side effect more infrastructure and services available for those in poverty ("rising tide" etc.) is spectacularly disingenuous. At least it keeps Bernie's name in the news and he points out clinton gets nowhere first. I just hope it doesn't decrease turn out. Bernie's much derided stump speech never promises to end racism, but it says he wants to attack it. It never promises reparations, but it does promise a racially focused jobs program. TNC elides this. stephenfry fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Jan 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Do you understand the point I was making differentiating between guilt and responsibility? The distinction you are trying to draw is not substantive. I'll concede to you 'responsibility' instead of 'guilt.' My point remains.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:The distinction you are trying to draw is not substantive. I'll concede to you 'responsibility' instead of 'guilt.' My point remains. It's very substantive. Feeling guilt is only appropriate if you were actually personally and knowingly or carelessly involved in the actions that brought about a certain state; feeling responsibility is a mature response to seeing inequity and unfairness in the world while having the power to affect it. This is pretty common sense, unless English isn't your first language. The words clearly differentiate from each other. stephenfry posted:New TNC article on the subject: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/bernie-sanders-liberal-imagination/425022/ This is just you not knowing what anodyne means, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
boom boom boom posted:When you say reparations a lot of people think that just means giving every black person a check, paid for by a tax on white people. boom boom boom posted:I dunno dude. "it's totally practical, because this dude proposed a bill to make some people figure it out" isn't a very convincing argument. You could propose a bill to set up a commission to figure out how to get Americans to use jetpacks as their primary means of transportation. Doesn't mean it's a practical idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:It's very substantive. Feeling guilt is only appropriate if you were actually personally and knowingly or carelessly involved in the actions that brought about a certain state; feeling responsibility is a mature response to seeing inequity and unfairness in the world while having the power to affect it. I'm speaking of guilt not as a feeling, but something that is imposed. In your notion of 'responsibility,' is there an element of duty or not? It's interesting that you use the terms 'inequity' and 'unfairness,' to the exclusion of 'inequality.' I don't disagree with this, if you did it intentionally.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:I'm speaking of guilt not as a feeling, but something that is imposed. Then again, responsibility is a lot better word. We're not imposing 'guilt' on wealthy people when we tax them, either. quote:In your notion of 'responsibility,' is there an element of duty or not? It's interesting that you use the terms 'inequity' and 'unfairness,' to the exclusion of 'inequality.' I don't disagree with this, if you did it intentionally. Given your problem with definitions, I'm going to bet we don't share the same definition of nearly anything, but yes, I meant inequity and unfairness. And duty--depends what you mean by it. I don't see any way that word is superior to responsibility here and some ways its worse. The semantic dickering around misses the main point: People don't have to feel guilt about the state that black Americans are in. They don't have to feel the least bit as though they themselves intentionally or carelessly contributed to the problem. They just need to take responsibility and address it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
Not to derail, I am in favor of reparations, and Coates is right, we should be pushing past and going beyond, talking about it is a first step. Does the thread address Native Americans at all?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
DJ BK posted:Not to derail, I am in favor of reparations, and Coates is right, we should be pushing past and going beyond, talking about it is a first step. Does the thread address Native Americans at all? Yes, everyone agrees native americans should get reparations as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:The semantic dickering around misses the main point: People don't have to feel guilt about the state that black Americans are in. They don't have to feel the least bit as though they themselves intentionally or carelessly contributed to the problem. They just need to take responsibility and address it. Not at all. It serves to identify what you really mean. I don't have a problem with definitions; I have a problem with semantic sloppiness. When you say "People don't have to feel guilt [ ... ] They don't have to feel [ ... ] They just need to take responsibility[.]" Who are you talking about?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Yes, everyone agrees native americans should get reparations as well. College financial aid Health care
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Yes, everyone agrees native americans should get reparations as well. What about Chinese Americans? They had a pretty lovely time and were cut out of a lot of the social programs blacks were.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Not at all. It serves to identify what you really mean. I don't have a problem with definitions; I have a problem with semantic sloppiness. That's not semantic sloppiness. Who I'm talking about depends on the situation that responsibility is being taken. I already defined it earlier in this case, anyway. You are super boring. Cool orthogonal links bro. boom boom boom posted:What about Chinese Americans? They had a pretty lovely time and were cut out of a lot of the social programs blacks were. Yes, them too. I don't get why people think this is a gotcha. It seems to imply "Well we couldn't possibly make reparations to everyone that we hosed over" which is the same as "We can't do preparations for this particular group we hosed over" as an argument: a non-starter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
boom boom boom posted:What about Chinese Americans? They had a pretty lovely time and were cut out of a lot of the social programs blacks were. There's a bit of a trickier situation there since a very large number of them came here post 1950, a large number of the ones that were around in the late 19th century left after a few years, and a lot of the descendants of the ones that stayed would pass for white today (because a lot of the Chinese were male, so they interracially married). They're a lot closer to the Irish than to Blacks & Mexicans, but if you can find someone whose ancestors were actually here back then, go for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Yes, them too. I don't get why people think this is a gotcha. It seems to imply "Well we couldn't possibly make reparations to everyone that we hosed over" which is the same as "We can't do preparations for this particular group we hosed over" as an argument: a non-starter. It was a genuine question.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
boom boom boom posted:It was a genuine question. Sorry, it's been answered in the thread already. The concept of reparations isn't tied to any particular race.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Sorry, it's been answered in the thread already. Is it just race, or could Mormons or homosexuals also get reparations?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
boom boom boom posted:Is it just race, or could Mormons or homosexuals also get reparations? For mormons, if you can make a case for it, go for it. But again, everything doesn't have to happen at once. Homosexuality is pretty different in that it's not generational, so homosexuals as a class aren't deprived by the treatment of homosexuals in the past.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
DJ BK posted:Not to derail, I am in favor of reparations, and Coates is right, we should be pushing past and going beyond, talking about it is a first step. Does the thread address Native Americans at all? boom boom boom posted:Is it just race, or could Mormons or homosexuals also get reparations? Given Mormons are their own community, not an innate natural state, that seems difficult, if not a category error.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Sorry, it's been answered in the thread already. Then what are reparations meant to repair? The subject of the thread is "What could racial reparations be?" I agree that race is a piss-poor proxy for socioeconomic situation, despite the undeniable correlation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 06:16 |
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Then what are reparations meant to repair? The subject of the thread is "What could racial reparations be?" I agree that race is a piss-poor proxy for socioeconomic situation, despite the undeniable correlation. You don't 'agree' because I didn't say that, or anything close to it. The 'socio' part of socioeconomic very obviously does include 'race' as one of the operators. Nobody is attempting to make it a proxy for socioeconomic situation. Reparations are made to repair generational victimization of a group that's led to a structural inequity. That the topic of the thread is racial reparations doesn't prevent someone from talking about other reparations--why would it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 18:10
|
|