|
Obdicut posted:I don't know what you mean by there not being a good solution. There aren't any solutions without struggle and cost; that's true for anything. I'm just talking about the possibility that, even with effort and cost, a solution might not be possible just due to some combination of human nature and the world we live in. For example, the nature of human psychology combined with our capitalist economy might mean that it is literally impossible to ever achieve a society where resources are distributed in a reasonable/fair way and poverty is eliminated in the US. Either way, I'm not arguing with you. As I mentioned, it's a trivial point since you should still pursue such a solution regardless. And racial reparations - at least in the form of social programs that target minorities - should be possible. I mean, we already do it; we just need to greatly expand the scope.
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 08:10 |
|
|
stephenfry posted:
Where would Asian-Americans and Muslim-Americans fit with privilege testing? Both groups enjoy incomes and educational attainment significantly above the mean in the US. Should these groups be handicapped, as with the first group in California university admissions, despite systematic discrimination in the past?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I'm just talking about the possibility that, even with effort and cost, a solution might not be possible just due to some combination of human nature and the world we live in. For example, the nature of human psychology combined with our capitalist economy might mean that it is literally impossible to ever achieve a society where resources are distributed in a reasonable/fair way and poverty is eliminated in the US. Yeah, whether it's really possible is untestable except in the super long term, so arguing if it is or isn't has little point. What's important is agreeing is that pursuing solutions is still paramount. TheImmigrant posted:Where would Asian-Americans and Muslim-Americans fit with privilege testing? Both groups enjoy incomes and educational attainment significantly above the mean in the US. Should these groups be handicapped, as with the first group in California university admissions, despite systematic discrimination in the past? That's not what reparations is about, though, it's not about income. This was just explained to you, too. It's almost as if you don't engage with subjections seriously.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Yeah, whether it's really possible is untestable except in the super long term, so arguing if it is or isn't has little point. What's important is agreeing is that pursuing solutions is still paramount. Then what are reparations meant to repair, and how to repair it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Then what are reparations meant to repair, and how to repair it? Obdicut posted:
And did you read the Coates article? quote:Broach the topic of reparations today and a barrage of questions inevitably follows: Who will be paid? How much will they be paid? Who will pay? But if the practicalities, not the justice, of reparations are the true sticking point, there has for some time been the beginnings of a solution. For the past 25 years, Congressman John Conyers Jr., who represents the Detroit area, has marked every session of Congress by introducing a bill calling for a congressional study of slavery and its lingering effects as well as recommendations for “appropriate remedies.” To figure out how to best do reparations would take a long look by a lot of people. But first we have to get to the point of acknowledging our responsibility to do so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Then what are reparations meant to repair, and how to repair it? They are meant to atone for your crimes. Your guilt. The blood on your hands. There, I said it. Why shouldn't I give you what you want? You'll invent it as a straw man if nobody says it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:They are meant to atone for your crimes. Your guilt. The blood on your hands. There, I said it. Why shouldn't I give you what you want? You'll invent it as a straw man if nobody says it. I wasn't in the US for slavery, nor were any of my ancestors.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:And did you read the Coates article? Yes, but who are the 'we' behind 'our' responsibility? This is a pivotal question.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Yes, but who are the 'we' behind 'our' responsibility? This is a pivotal question. It's one I've already answered, though. Broadly 'we' are the citizens of the US, as represented through the government. On a personal level, 'we' are those who know that we have benefitted generationally at the expense of others, and take responsibility for that. However, personal responsibility won't possibly be good enough (just as personal charity isn't), and so the citizen-government level is much more important. This was easily inferable by what I've said and, indeed, the very concept of reparations. It shouldn't have puzzled you for a moment. TheImmigrant posted:I wasn't in the US for slavery, nor were any of my ancestors. How is this not an appeal to personal characteristics, of the kind you claim you lampoon?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:I wasn't in the US for slavery, nor were any of my ancestors. Arguing against reparations actually makes you guiltier than the descendants of slave owners, drinking a mint julep sitting on the front porch of a former plantation. You should be taxed more heavily than them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
Ah, responsibility, now there's an interesting word. Usually, responsibility is associated with a choice, and of course for most people there simply is no such thing. Also a concept with a bit of a mixed history, when only landowners were allowed to vote, it was on the grounds that they were the most responsible, because they had the most skin in the game. Not that responsibility is necessarily bad, accountability is important for any system of people to work. But as a principle of justice? Obdicut, you made comparisons to libertarianism before, but I'm not sure exactly how aware you are of how similar you are sounding to libertarians. After all, why should the rich be taxed at all, beyond the bare necessity of the system working? Should they be responsible for anyone else but themselves? Assuming, of course, you cancel the 'debts' of slavery and ensure they got everything for fair exchange - since that's what justice is for you, an exchange. It's also something that's definitely going to be used against you. Let's take criminals - no one has a responsibility to hire them, yet if no one does, nothing changes. Is that right, for you? After all, it's easy to blame them - they need to take responsibility (that is, suffer). And there are unfortunately a lot of minority criminals, all of which will suffer, for the sake of your 'responsibility'. And if you don't think your own rhetoric here is not going to be used against you, you are sadly mistaken.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
rudatron posted:After all, why should the rich be taxed at all, beyond the bare necessity of the system working? Under certain definitions of "bare necessity", they shouldn't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Then you're nothing but a selfish monster, without either a love for humanity or a compassion for people who are not yourself - it doesn't matter at what level you define 'necessity'.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
So, I'll admit I've tried to keep up with this thread but had my eyes glaze over a bit for pages at a time. What are the actual concrete reparations proposals people have made so far?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Then you're nothing but a selfish monster, without either a love for humanity or a compassion for people who are not yourself - it doesn't matter at what level you define 'necessity'. No, it does matter. GlyphGryph posted:So, I'll admit I've tried to keep up with this thread but had my eyes glaze over a bit for pages at a time. What are the actual concrete reparations proposals people have made so far? There really hasn't been much other than "give extra to minority groups via welfare programs" because most people are more interested in saying that racists will oppose it so we shouldn't support it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Ah, responsibility, now there's an interesting word. Usually, responsibility is associated with a choice Not true, so you can stop there. If you benefit from inequality you are responsible for fixing it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:So, I'll admit I've tried to keep up with this thread but had my eyes glaze over a bit for pages at a time. What are the actual concrete reparations proposals people have made so far? Mine would be "Pass that bill that Conyers has been trying to pass forever, and study the subject, because it's obviously not something to be hammered out in amateur hour". rudatron posted:Obdicut, you made comparisons to libertarianism before, but I'm not sure exactly how aware you are of how similar you are sounding to libertarians. After all, why should the rich be taxed at all, beyond the bare necessity of the system working? Should they be responsible for anyone else but themselves? I don't sound the least bit like a libertarian, and yes, they should be responsible for others.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Where would Asian-Americans and Muslim-Americans fit with privilege testing? Both groups enjoy incomes and educational attainment significantly above the mean in the US. Should these groups be handicapped, as with the first group in California university admissions, despite systematic discrimination in the past? SedanChair posted:Not true, so you can stop there. If you benefit from inequality you are responsible for fixing it. V SedanChair has already said they consider themselves responsible for helping to fix inequality
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Not true, so you can stop there. If you benefit from inequality you are responsible for fixing it. Do you live in the US?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I don't sound the least bit like a libertarian, and yes, they should be responsible for others. computer parts posted:No, it does matter. rudatron fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Jan 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Then on what basis do you burden them with responsibility? Are they just responsible 'Because you say so'? If you're saying that someone can be responsible without a choice, then your just redefining what responsibility means, and has meant for centuries, just so you can win an internet argument. On the basis that human beings in a society are responsible to each other, and in a larger sense, that humans are responsible for each other. And yes, obviously responsibility doesn't require a choice. A parent is responsible for their child without choosing to be so. I'm not redefining anything, you're so weird. quote:You can't separate 'responsibility' from 'liability' and 'blame'. You can, in fact, that's part of why they are separate words. You make almost no sense sometimes. You make all sorts of bizarre assertions without even the slightest attempt to justify them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:34
|
|
Obdicut posted:Mine would be "Pass that bill that Conyers has been trying to pass forever, and study the subject, because it's obviously not something to be hammered out in amateur hour". I seriously doubt he's really been trying that hard to get it passed. A congressman submitting a bill is not a difficult thing, it's what they're there for. Can you bring me any evidence that the Black Caucus has actually pushed really really hard for this or attempted to use their connections or make it an issue or is it just a bill that guy submits every year so we can be voted down in committee and not go anywhere? Armyman25 fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Jan 25, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Do you live in the US? Yes, I bear responsibility for the current state of affairs, have benefited from privilege and from not looking black, and I am happy to pay taxes towards reparations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:I seriously doubt he's really been trying that hard to get it passed. A congressman submitting a bill is not a difficult thing, it's what they're there for. Can you bring me any evidence that the Black Caucus has actually pushed really really hard for this attempted make their connections attempted to make it an issue or is it just a bill that guy submits every year so we can be voted down in committee and not go anywhere? I don't understand the relevance of the question. He knows it doesn't have much of a chance of getting passed, and no, the Black Caucus has not pushed really really hard to make this go anywhere. Nobody claimed otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Reparations are made to repair generational victimization of a group that's led to a structural inequity. Then why on earth would you start with race? being born poor is way worse for you than being born black.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
rudatron posted:No it doesn't - if you only support the welfare of another human because of a rational calculus, it means you will abandon them when that calculus is not longer true. The necessity can be making sure every human is comfortable and empowered. boom boom boom posted:Then why on earth would you start with race? being born poor is way worse for you than being born black. Need a pretty big [citation needed] here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:45
|
|
Obdicut posted:I don't understand the relevance of the question. He knows it doesn't have much of a chance of getting passed, and no, the Black Caucus has not pushed really really hard to make this go anywhere. Its relevant because it shows he's not serious about having a study. He's not actually trying to get it passed.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
boom boom boom posted:Then why on earth would you start with race? being born poor is way worse for you than being born black. In what way? How do you know?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
boom boom boom posted:Then why on earth would you start with race? being born poor is way worse for you than being born black. What calculus are you using to determine this? For example, say you're born black and middle class. You go to engineering school, get a degree, and find yourself hired less often, fired earlier, promoted less often, and the other various systemic racial problems that affect black people. In terms of professional fulfillment, they may be severely frustrated. Economics isn't just about money. That is part of why to start with race: You can solve wealth inequity on its own by simple transfer of wealth. Reparations are taking responsibility for generational harms and generational parasitism. Huge surprise that after 'just asking questions' you turn out to find the concept of racial reparations astonishing. Armyman25 posted:Its relevant because it shows he's not serious about having a study. He's not actually trying to get it passed. Dude, nobody is claiming he's trying to get it passed. That doesn't mean he's not serious about having a study: that is what he would like to happen. It isn't going to, because of the political reality, but why on earth would you think that implies he doesn't really want it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:48
|
|
Obdicut posted:What calculus are you using to determine this? If he is not even going to put in the effort to try and get the bill passed how can he turn around and say see they won't pass my bill? If he showed some effort and some work at trying to get it passed I might take it seriously.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:For example, say you're born black and middle class. You go to engineering school, get a degree, and find yourself hired less often, fired earlier, promoted less often, and the other various systemic racial problems that affect black people. In terms of professional fulfillment, they may be severely frustrated. Economics isn't just about money. Blacks who attain professional credentials (e.g., attorney with JD from T14 law school) are highly sought by hiring partners at big law firms and especially government agencies. Ceteris paribus, a black graduate from University of Chicago-Law will have many more job offers than his or her white peer from law school.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Huge surprise that after 'just asking questions' you turn out to find the concept of racial reparations astonishing. What? I had always heard reparations as basically "back-pay". The descendents of slaves getting paid for the work their ancestors did. That makes sense to me. I don't know if it's a good or workable idea, but I get it. But if it's trying to do stuff based on whether or not someone is from a group that currently suffers from long-standing social problems due to bad stuff in the past, then that's a crazy complicated idea. You gotta figure out some kind of matrix that accounts for every group that isn't "anglo-saxon heterosexual men from middleclass or wealthy families"
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
computer parts posted:There really hasn't been much other than "give extra to minority groups via welfare programs" because most people are more interested in saying that racists will oppose it so we shouldn't support it. Okay, that's what the stuff I read amounted to, I had hoped I'd missed something. Since that conversation seems dumb, I'm going to make an actual, concrete proposal! I fully expect reasonable disagreements with every piece of these, but it seems like it would be a better conversation than what we have now. First, premises: The purpose of reparations would, at least in part, be a combination of the following: a) An attempt to change society to reflect, more than it does now, a society in which institutional racism was not as prevalent. b) To create an opportunity, through redistribution of wealth, for those who receive reparations to fight against continued systemic inequality c) To restore some portion of the political and economic power of that demographic, at least in keeping with it's share of the population With the context and understanding that the United States currently has approximately 536 billionaires, and of those only one, Oprah Winfrey, is black, and that similar patterns follow for other wealth levels (with 8% of millionaires being black as opposed to 13% in the general population*), and that the wealthy are in a unique position to exert power and create institutions that shape society. I propose the following: A modest effective tax increase of 1% of the top 10% of earners, for 10 years, to pay for the program. A budget of $30 billion dollars a year, for 10 years, to the reparations program. A national lottery for black US citizens, with automatic enrollment and the following prizes each year: - 5 $2 billion dollar prizes, as immediate untaxed income to the recipient, as well as the provision of financial and lifestyle experts to the winners at no course, should they so desire - 50 $100 million dollar prizes, as above - 5,000 $1 million dollar prizes, as above - $5 billion dollars in interest free business loans to black entrepreneurs - The remainder to spent on administration, education, and other incentives The prize is dependent on the agreement that the recipients are willing to relocate to a particular region of the United States (where does not matter, there are pros and cons to each region, but clustering of some sort is important to maximize local effects - there are 10 million millionaires in the US right now, and if we're trying to address institutional problems we simply won't be able to influence representation nationally) Result: After 10 years, the program will end, having distributed $250 billion dollars, created 50 black billionaires (making them almost 10% of the total number of billionaires nationally, up from .02%, should they stay billionaires for 10 years), 500 hundred-millionaires, and 50,000 regular millionaires. While these people may not have a huge influence directly, when combined with relocation the purpose is to establish a solid infrastructure for a black powerbase in some US region, with penetration into prized educational institutions, acceptance into or creation of alternative local power structures. Basically, it's an attempt to leverage the powers of regionalism to build outsized if localized benefits with some generational staying power. * This is... actually a lot better than I thought it would be. Feel free to explain why this is a terrible plan, but please don't limit it to just "people would never do it, they hate the blacks too much".
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
What are you talking about? You don't have to have a child if you don't want to - you can always sterilize yourself. And that is a very different understanding of responsibility to how it is actually used! Under your definition, anyone who has an opportunity to help (say, by passing a burning building), but does not, is liable. Legally, that's not he case. Thing is about 'responsibility to society', that has a funny way of changing what it means depending on who is in control of society! In a society that lets the poor starve, you aren't responsible. In a society that does, you are. So, as it turns out, all responsibility stems from obligations placed on you, by people with more power than you. The whole idea of the social contract being that you choose to accept that burden, in exchange for benefits - you get to live under a system that has better ideals that nature. But while that is generally regarded as 'right', whatever the system, that isn't the same as 'good'.computer parts posted:The necessity can be making sure every human is comfortable and empowered. You see now why I'm starting to take issue with the framing here, because it's not a framing that you 'own', it's one that you've adopted, and that can and will be used against you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
A lottery for black people, how incredibly tasteful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:If he is not even going to put in the effort to try and get the bill passed how can he turn around and say see they won't pass my bill? If he showed some effort and some work at trying to get it passed I might take it seriously. Haha what the gently caress is this? it is a symbolic act. There is no actual way to get it passed at the moment. It is like various Native American tribes calling upon the government to honor treaties: they know it won't happen, but they're reminding people of the issue. The bill would be a good thing. he shouldn't have to do anything to convince you to support it. it's about an issue, it's not about Conyer. TheImmigrant posted:Blacks who attain professional credentials (e.g., attorney with JD from T14 law school) are highly sought by hiring partners at big law firms and especially government agencies. Ceteris paribus, a black graduate from University of Chicago-Law will have many more job offers than his or her white peer from law school. The proof of this is where? And the rest of what I said--you know, about promotion and advancement, are you making the same claim there? Hey you skipped the bit where you used your non-American-ness as part of the argument, despite claiming to lampoon people who use personal identity to argue on the internet. What was up with that? boom boom boom posted:What? I had always heard reparations as basically "back-pay". The descendents of slaves getting paid for the work their ancestors did. That makes sense to me. I don't know if it's a good or workable idea, but I get it. But if it's trying to do stuff based on whether or not someone is from a group that currently suffers from long-standing social problems due to bad stuff in the past, then that's a crazy complicated idea. You gotta figure out some kind of matrix that accounts for every group that isn't "anglo-saxon heterosexual men from middleclass or wealthy families" Did you read the Coates article?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
boom boom boom posted:What? I had always heard reparations as basically "back-pay". The descendents of slaves getting paid for the work their ancestors did. That makes sense to me. I don't know if it's a good or workable idea, but I get it. But if it's trying to do stuff based on whether or not someone is from a group that currently suffers from long-standing social problems due to bad stuff in the past, then that's a crazy complicated idea. You gotta figure out some kind of matrix that accounts for every group that isn't "anglo-saxon heterosexual men from middleclass or wealthy families" "back-pay" is one of the conceptualizations that is viewed as horribly patronizing and offensive by the marginalized groups in question. They didn't get transported or abused or malnourished or imprisoned of their own free will. It's funny you should mention anglo-saxons, they are one of the historical societies that actually kind of had fiscal libertarianism, in that you had to purchase enforcement of justice based on the expected return from the arbitrary fine that was affixed to all offenses. You'd pay a fraction of weregild for injuring or abusing someone, the whole 100% for outright manslaughter or aggravated murder by any method, ostensibly to support their family. Your "back-pay" simplification doesn't even cover the rigged system of a dark age society. stephenfry fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Jan 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Ahh, but is that 'necessary' for society? Is that something that is a necessity, or something we do because we are human? Who said anything about necessary for society?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:A lottery for black people, how incredibly tasteful. Do you think that, absent institutional racism, that wealth would have otherwise been spread equally? Life is a lottery, sort of a huge point in favour of reparations is that institutional racism and historical legacies mean that black people receive less opportunities than their white counterparts - why is an attempt to create a meaningful collection of financial and lifestyle opportunities focused solely on black people distasteful?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 08:10 |
|
|
stephenfry posted:New TNC article on the subject: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/bernie-sanders-liberal-imagination/425022/ First, I am confused by what you mean by anodyne. I would hardly call his piece non-contentious. In fact, it was written precisely to call out a particular argument. As for the equivocation of Bernie's platform, most of Bernie's racial justice platform is just general stuff and nothing really dedicated to fighting racial inequality. The page is full of the "rising tide" mentality. You are looking at this in terms of a political argument or a political criticism, but I think he is looking at it in the frame of a moral criticism. Look at how Bernie handles the issue on Meet the Press: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbH-T33SbjE Look at how he skirts around the issue to avoid having to specifically talk about race, but rather he focuses hard on economics. Look at how he uses that Obama and Hillary did it! as an excuse. It makes me think that he really didn't learn a drat thing after getting criticized at netroots and in Seattle.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 20:07
|
|
