|
computer parts posted:This is funny in light of the primary complaint of reparations being that the whites would put their feet down because they won't personally see as much benefit from the strategy that starts with the worst off people. Okay, to be fair, a mincome scheme would benefit white people too unless relatively well-off, but I think people arguing for a mincome scheme do it because it's the system least likely to be discriminatory in practice, as there would be no forms to fill, no people judging your application, just money paid out directly each month to every adult citizen. That's quite different from going "But what about black people pulling in $100K a year?? They live in $30K a year neighborhoods!" while arguing that policies which would benefit people making far far less than that are worth keeping hostage to gain immediate and direct benefits for the former beyond what a reform of how the police do their business would entail. Yes, those are issues which should be dealt with, but given how utterly hosed African-Americans at the very bottom rung of American society are, perhaps a bit of triage makes sense?
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 08:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 18:56 |
|
|
computer parts posted:And that's code for "don't focus on race too much or the white people will leave". Atwater used that language, not because he believed it, but because it was useful for signalling to racist whites. I have been very upfront with what I believe, and why, and in fact I'm calling on precedents of leftism that have part of its legacy since well before me, you, or any of the other chucklefucks itt existed. blackguy32 posted:Saying I am gullible implies that TNC is trying to lie to me about something or fool me into thinking something. rudatron fucked around with this message at 08:25 on Jan 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Is that how you see it? Because as far as I can tell people are simply arguing for a race neutral welfare scheme, which might not personally benefit a single white person in this thread. And at the very least, I'm fairly confident that not everyone arguing for a race neutral welfare scheme would be a beneficiary of such. It's basically the same story for whites in general, a race neutral welfare scheme would not benefit most white people directly, and in many cases only very indirectly as a consequence of the economy growing stronger. (Except the ones where that is offset by having to pay higher taxes, which would of course hit white people harder because they get better jobs. Which is entirely fair, but still, no personal benefit.) I'm not talking about white people in this thread specifically. I'm talking about the reason why reparations are seen as impractical - (other) white people will say "hey where's my share" and oppose it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 08:27
|
|
|
computer parts posted:So in effect you're saying minorities should vote for the lesser or two evils? *Looks at Bernie, shakes head* This old white man, totally out of touch, talking about 'socialism' and 'inequality', sorry to say brogressive, but marching with MLK isn't good enough. Now, this Clinton lady, with a campaign funded by the prison-industrial complex...this lady speaks to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 08:27
|
|
|
rudatron posted:but marching with MLK isn't good enough. Oh look, that old chestnut.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 08:28
|
|
|
Yes, good job you, don't look down Wile E. Coyote or you'll fall to your death. But before that, and while you're here, could you do us a favor and list policies that you think are going to End Racism, and that cannot be justified without this reparations study? Or for that matter, what exactly and with what political resources these reparations are going to be?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 08:40
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Yes, good job you, don't look down Wile E. Coyote or you'll fall to your death. But before that, and while you're here, could you do us a favor and list policies that you think are going to End Racism, and that cannot be justified without this reparations study? Or for that matter, what exactly and with what political resources these reparations are going to be? That depends entirely on the content of the reparations study.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I'm not talking about white people in this thread specifically. I'm talking about the reason why reparations are seen as impractical - (other) white people will say "hey where's my share" and oppose it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 08:46
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That depends entirely on the content of the reparations study. Sometimes, I don't get other people. Walk down the street naked, and you're an exhibitionist. Show your naked opinions, and you're accused of it being code for something else. But give a nakedly dismissive response to a question that no one has answered yet, oh that's fine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 09:04
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I'm not talking about white people in this thread specifically. I'm talking about the reason why reparations are seen as impractical - (other) white people will say "hey where's my share" and oppose it. Its really awkward to assign degree of reparations (and degree of blame) when all the original actors are dead. Reparations, especially in the article that Ta Neshi Coates discussed, had things like the individual woman who sued for her freedom and won, or reparations for Israel *as the nation state representative for all Jews* from (only west) Germany within a short time after the war. It's also noteworthy that it was from a nation state to a nation state, not from within a part of a nation state to another part of the nation state. What would be proper reparations to a black immigrant from Ghana from the 1920s? How would it differ if he was an immigrant from the 1980s? Assuredly it would be different in both cases for the descendant of slaves. Let's pretend someone has a distant ancestor who had a slave plantation back in Missouri? How much more responsible for is s/he than the white from Appalachia whose family has been there as far back as records go? The complete and utter lack of ability to inspect down to a degree of granularity that anyone is remotely able to identify with is a major issue with the concept of reparations-as-benefits,with the possible exception of people who strongly identify with the concept of "original sin" I suppose. Or perhaps for people who believe the story about how sins visit the 10th generation or whatever. I have a hard time taking responsibility for the sins of my father or grandfather, I have enough of my own to deal with, and I suspect that most other people will take the same tack. Now, reparations for improper payment for things like "the government didn't offer enough money for eminent domain of the highway through the historically black neighborhood, 20 years ago because of X (such as the soft value of the community center that was destroyed), Y (such as subsidized housing targeted towards the black community being destroyed and not replaced elsewhere), Z (no clue, but call it a catchall for poo poo I am not clever enough to think of)" that's a lot easier, much more identifiable with the aggrieved party and actors responsible, and something I'm totally willing to get behind. rudatron posted:Atwater used that language, not because he believed it, but because it was useful for signalling to racist whites. I have been very upfront with what I believe, and why, and in fact I'm calling on precedents of leftism that have part of its legacy since well before me, you, or any of the other chucklefucks itt existed. The Dipshit fucked around with this message at 14:43 on Jan 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 12:46
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The study conclusive proves what you think, up to and including a confession by your coworker, who actually thought your macros were pretty sweat that one times you showed him, but refused to give you the recognition you deserved because he was racist. Then I suppose the confessions of the coworker is one such item that wouldn't exist otherwise. Claverjoe posted:Its really awkward to assign degree of reparations (and degree of blame) when all the original actors are dead. You're once again assuming reparations are due to slavery, rather than the treatment of African-Americans (and other Africans in America) throughout the past 150 years. Like, Zimmerman is very much alive, so are those cops that gunned down the kid in Cleveland.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You're once again assuming reparations are due to slavery, rather than the treatment of African-Americans (and other Africans in America) throughout the past 150 years. Then go find whoever discriminated against someone else and sue them. Group justice is still bad justice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 18:28
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:Then go find whoever discriminated against someone else and sue them. Group justice is still bad justice. The definition of group justice you seem to be using would frown on many class action movements as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You're once again assuming reparations are due to slavery, rather than the treatment of African-Americans (and other Africans in America) throughout the past 150 years. Specific, actionable issues are things I'm in favor of pursuing, I thought I made that clear at the end of my post. While my political leanings are very far left of the normal American discourse, I'm also strongly in favor of government action spelled out as clearly as possible. Nebulous powers, even in favor of a good cause, is something I'm against. computer parts posted:The definition of group justice you seem to be using would frown on many class action movements as well. Many people aggrieved against a single entity for a specific action or product is something that is well defined in law. The Dipshit fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Jan 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Plenty of people are alive from Jim Crow days
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Plenty of people are alive from Jim Crow days Which should totally be a thing investigated while they are still alive, as they are getting older. I'd totally be happy to see a suit levied against, oh say,the city Highland Park, Texas which was a sundown town up until the 1960s.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The definition of group justice you seem to be using would frown on many class action movements as well. Class action has a group all members of which have suffered some sort of loss. Class action is "everyone who had their house burnt down by a cheap Tesco store brand toaster due to a known design flaw gets $200.000 from Tesco". Group justice would be "everyone who has ever shopped at Tesco gets $200.000 from Tesco" or "everyone whose house burnt down due to a Tesco toaster gets $200.000 from an arbitrary supermarket".
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
blowfish posted:"everyone whose house burnt down due to a Tesco toaster gets $200.000 from an arbitrary supermarket". This, incidentally, is how the FDIC works.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
computer parts posted:This, incidentally, is how the FDIC works. That seems to stretch the idea of how insurance works a little much for a proper analogy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Claverjoe posted:That seems to stretch the idea of how insurance works a little much for a proper analogy. It's true though, if your bank goes under then the money is paid for using a fund that all the banks pay into.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's true though, if your bank goes under then the money is paid for using a fund that all the banks pay into. But the FDIC is not a supermarket unto itself, now is it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
Claverjoe posted:But the FDIC is not a supermarket unto itself, now is it? Nope.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Plenty of people are alive from Jim Crow days rudatron fucked around with this message at 08:09 on Jan 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 07:50
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Nuremberg for Klan dickheads, corrupt officials and loan sharks is great stuff, it would have a monumentally positive impact and reinforce ideals of equality and justice. But it wouldn't be reparations, it would be justice, plain and simple. it would be a great start U.N. panel suggests slavery reparations in U.S. stephenfry fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Feb 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 08:17
|
|
|
All this talk of guilt appears to grow out of a fundamental misunderstanding of what the purpose of government is and why we create social insurance in the first place. We don't need a guilty party to provide injured people with relief. When we sent federal aid to victims of hurricane Sandy, it wasn't a pronouncement of guilt on every taxpayer for causing the storm nor an exaction of blood punishment on the populace of inland areas. We did it because it's the right thing to do, and because letting whole communities fall arbitrarily into destitution is bad for our civilization and our society. Since when did leftists call taxes "punishment"? The government funds much worse things than this, the idea it's somehow a punishment of the rich if black people are compensated for centuries of denying them a decent living is frankly ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 12:02
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:All this talk of guilt appears to grow out of a fundamental misunderstanding of what the purpose of government is and why we create social insurance in the first place. We don't need a guilty party to provide injured people with relief. When we sent federal aid to victims of hurricane Sandy, it wasn't a pronouncement of guilt on every taxpayer for causing the storm nor an exaction of blood punishment on the populace of inland areas. We did it because it's the right thing to do, and because letting whole communities fall arbitrarily into destitution is bad for our civilization and our society. The word "reparations" doesn't exactly convey that thought either. Reparations more than implies having a guilty person/party. Federal welfare/mincome would both do the same thing and not convey the sense of punishment and reward by ethnic heritage when you say "reparations for black people". Would you be willing to let go of the specific term "reparations" to get what you want? Because that has largely been what the debate has been about, from what I can see.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 12:37
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Do reparations have a purpose, apart from the mere fact of apology, that simply expanding social safety nets in general for everyone wouldn't satisfy? Answering the concerns of the black middle class with programmes for poor people is simply tone deaf. Most blacks aren't poor, many hate the poor fully as much as the average American.. In any case poor people don't vote, and certainly don't volunteer or donate. So If you want black votes , you need to have a story that appeals to millionaires, professionals and salaried employees. Reparations is that, as it is about creating more black billionaires, professors, movie stars. Not more slightly- less-poor people. It's symbolic, aspirational and positive. Best of all, it won't cost anything as it will never happen, at least without amending the constitution, packing the Supreme Court.and probably disbanding the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 13:27
|
|
|
Also the reason it's used against Sanders, and never against Clinton. It's honestly hard to tell who you are talking to. Are you talking to me? Because I've argued since day one that 'reparations' isn't just impractical, but totally antithetical to an ideology focused on the improvement of the human condition - people like obdicut have contrawise argued that it's primarily about an admission of guilt, and that's before any actual policy recommendations (none of which have actually been provided - my prodding on this point has been met with nothing but arrogant dismissal). But then you throw out the punishment line, so I'm not really sure you intended your post to target the pro-rep side. I'd like you to declare exactly who you're addressing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
Claverjoe posted:The word "reparations" doesn't exactly convey that thought either. Reparations more than implies having a guilty person/party. In this instance, it's America. Which is why America would be paying out of its general revenues.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
Which comes out of taxpayers pockets. And guess which group of people conveniently have their wealth in foreign accounts, undertaxed in capital gains and who are pushing for the dismantling of the public good, even while they make massive profits both from that good existing and the process of its destruction? If you answered 'the rich', congratulations, as a fabulous prize, please accept this platter of empty rhetoric that demonizes the poor and unfortunate as lacking in 'responsibility'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Saying "shut up about your issues because the other side is horrible and won't listen to you anyway" is kind of an evil, yeah. For me, the whole sticking point with reparations debates is that white people are horrible and won't listen to black people anyway, so there is going to need to be a way to address this. Even when they lose their majority, they control almost all of the country's wealth, they control its media, they control its financial system, they control the civil service, and they control the officer corps of the military. They will not willingly give up control of any of these. The South African apartheid regime ruled with a tiny white minority for decades and the only thing that brought them down was crippling international sanctions from almost the entire world (and their economy was much smaller and less resilient than the American one), and the fact that the country was spiraling towards a nuclear civil war (I remember reading about how the ruling party had plans to drop nukes on black townships to exterminate a large portion of the black population right off the bat). Parliamentary politics of the type many reparations advocates seem to endorse as a way to make them happen are not enough. People make jokes about #YallQaeda and the militia nutjobs, but people like that aren't just a bunch of redneck wackos (OK, they are that, but they're more than that). They're part of an enormous reserve army of white supremacy that white America has built in the past 150 years, many parts of which are far more competent and disciplined than Ammon Bundy and his little band of losers (remember that  used to be the world's most powerful terrorist organization). Meanwhile every attempt by black Americans to build a counter-force to this massive RaHoWa militia has been crushed, often by the federal government itself (i.e. federal intelligence agencies subverting and destroying the Black Panthers).I don't know what is to be done about it, but I am pretty confident that whatever ought to be done, there will no longer be a country called "The United States of America" at the end of it. The United States of America is and has always been a white settler colonialist empire. White supremacy is intrinsic to its very being. It will likely have to be dismantled to achieve anything resembling racial justice...assuming there is any hope of people of color winning, and assuming anything will be left at the end to pay reparations with. *glugglugglugglug*  blowfish posted:That's because loudly screeching social justice advocates typically don't see themselves as If you would take up arms and fight to get out of doing the right thing, you have justified the people fighting for justice killing you. White people will have to lose for racism to be dismantled, and most of them, consciously or not, know this. But it's not black people's fault if they don't like it. Woolie Wool fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Feb 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 16:28
|
|
the ends justify the means, gotta break some eggs to make that omelette
|
Woolie Wool posted:For me, the whole sticking point with reparations debates is that white people are horrible and won't listen to black people anyway, so there is going to need to be a way to address this. Even when they lose their majority, they control almost all of the country's wealth, they control its media, they control its financial system, they control the civil service, and they control the officer corps of the military. They will not willingly give up control of any of these. The South African apartheid regime ruled with a tiny white minority for decades and the only thing that brought them down was crippling international sanctions from almost the entire world (and their economy was much smaller and less resilient than the American one), and the fact that the country was spiraling towards a nuclear civil war (I remember reading about how the ruling party had plans to drop nukes on black townships to exterminate a large portion of the black population right off the bat). Parliamentary politics of the type many reparations advocates seem to endorse as a way to make them happen are not enough.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Is it even a certainty white people will lose their majority any time soon? They have roughly a quarter of a century to start admitting some white Hispanics to maintain it, and if they integrate all white Hispanics their majority will be more solid than it is today by 2050. Obviously this might not be in the cards right now, but as the proportion of non-Hispanic whites grows smaller they might be accepted to maintain the status quo. Probably, and others have predicted something similar. However, it would only postpone the reckoning a few more decades, because Latin America is entering the demographic transition and the world is kind of running out of booming populations of light-skinned people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:Probably, and others have predicted something similar. However, it would only postpone the reckoning a few more decades, because Latin America is entering the demographic transition and the world is kind of running out of booming populations of light-skinned people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:In this instance, it's America. Which is why America would be paying out of its general revenues. For specific infractions that the Federal (or state) government committed to specific groups of people, ethnic or otherwise, I'm in favor of the general idea. I'd go so far as to say that the Japanese internment reparations, while arguably insufficient is scale, is a good model for specific, actionable reparations. Woolie Wool posted:Probably, and others have predicted something similar. However, it would only postpone the reckoning a few more decades, because Latin America is entering the demographic transition and the world is kind of running out of booming populations of light-skinned people. I suspect the definition of "white" is much, much more malleable than you think it is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Claverjoe posted:I suspect the definition of "white" is much, much more malleable than you think it is. poo poo, 75 years ago there were a significant number of this country who didn't accept Italian people as "white." Saying nothing about former Soviet refugees who don't see themselves as fully "white" in the sense that Americans mean it (part of a ruling majority). poo poo, heaps of people don't consider Jewish people as white.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Claverjoe posted:I suspect the definition of "white" is much, much more malleable than you think it is. Historically, what has lead to ethnicities being considered white is a drop off of immigration from that group coupled with a massive rise in household wealth*. The first factor is never going to happen as long as we have a poorer country bordering us (and one with 100 million people, at that). The second factor is not going to happen as long as there's a massive demand for menial labor, especially those that can't be fulfilled by other minorities (if only due to the massive amount of demand). *Note that this is not an immutable law: Arabs and South Asians (Indians, etc) have very small numbers of immigration and are very wealthy on average, but are still Otherized, and this was true pre-9/11 too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
You're more likely to see Chinese-Americans and Japanese-Americans become white than Latinos generally, because Latinos are still perceived and treated largely as a caste minority.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You're more likely to see Chinese-Americans and Japanese-Americans become white than Latinos generally, because Latinos are still perceived and treated largely as a caste minority. Latinos are not treated as a caste minority. Caste in the US is socioeconomic. That there is a correlation between ethnicity and socioeconomic stratum is not a proof of causation. With Hispanics, education (and concomitant English ability) is more determinative of socioeconomic status than the ever-nebulous 'Hispanic' classification. Nice to see you, dude. It's not often we cross paths while you are awaiting an inevitable re-probation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 18:56 |
|
|
computer parts posted:Historically, what has lead to ethnicities being considered white is a drop off of immigration from that group coupled with a massive rise in household wealth*. As an anecdote (and granting such limitations from it) from when I lived in Texas, Latin folk living in Texas who had citizenship and joined the middle class also joined on regular "2 minute hates" of the poor immigrants. One I know well is married to a friend of mine. I'm not so sure that your first factor is terribly too applicable. EDIT: Oh man, I remember dating a (fairly pale) girl from Brazil and the poo poo her dad said was cringe-worthy as hell. It was a short lived relationship, didn't come to mind until I thought about it for a bit. The Dipshit fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Feb 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 18:44
|
|