4 ms·

It would be nice if we could have a correct understanding of the relevance and proportion of these questions, though. So a corporation made some sliver of its a

by mzw_mzw 10y ago

It would be nice if we could have a correct understanding of the relevance and proportion of these questions, though. So a corporation made some sliver of its annual income selling insurance policies to slaveowners over a hundred and fifty years ago (the "dark history" you are referring to.) How, precisely, is that relevant to policy in the modern day, as opposed to an element of historical trivia?

oceante 10y ago
It's hilarious how people lie to themselves about even the most plain facts. Note: > But by 1847, insurance policies on slaves accounted for a third of the policies in a firm that would become one of the nation’s Fortune 100 companies. becomes: > So a corporation made some sliver of its annual income selling insurance policies to slaveowners over a hundred and fifty years ago (the "dark history" you are referring to.) And then there's this delicious bit: > How, precisely, is that relevant to policy in the modern day, as opposed to an element of historical trivia? It's like the past has no meaning at all right? It's all just historical trivia? It's a shame you're not more brave. If you had the courage to state your intentions more plainly we wouldn't need to play these games would we? How, precisely, does hiding behind words help anybody?
- tzs 10y ago
  Why are you assuming that when mzw_mzw said that these policies only accounted for "some sliver of its annual income", he was referring to this from the article: > But by 1847, insurance policies on slaves accounted for a third of the policies in a firm that would become one of the nation’s Fortune 100 companies rather than the part of the article that actually mentioned income, namely this: > Its foray into the slave insurance business did not prove to be lucrative: The company ended up paying out nearly as much in death claims — about $232,000 in today’s dollars — as it received in annual payments ?
- mzw_mzw 10y ago
  > It's like the past has no meaning at all right? It's all just historical trivia? It depends. Is there anything actionable we can or should do based on this knowledge? > It's a shame you're not more brave. If you had the courage to state your intentions more plainly we wouldn't need to play these games would we? How, precisely, does hiding behind words help anybody? What, precisely, are you accusing me of? Go on, say it explicitly. I'm all ears.

by mzw_mzw 10y ago

oceante 10y ago

It's hilarious how people lie to themselves about even the most plain facts. Note: > But by 1847, insurance policies on slaves accounted for a third of the policies in a firm that would become one of the nation’s Fortune 100 companies. becomes: > So a corporation made some sliver of its annual income selling insurance policies to slaveowners over a hundred and fifty years ago (the "dark history" you are referring to.) And then there's this delicious bit: > How, precisely, is that relevant to policy in the modern day, as opposed to an element of historical trivia? It's like the past has no meaning at all right? It's all just historical trivia? It's a shame you're not more brave. If you had the courage to state your intentions more plainly we wouldn't need to play these games would we? How, precisely, does hiding behind words help anybody?

tzs 10y ago
Why are you assuming that when mzw_mzw said that these policies only accounted for "some sliver of its annual income", he was referring to this from the article: > But by 1847, insurance policies on slaves accounted for a third of the policies in a firm that would become one of the nation’s Fortune 100 companies rather than the part of the article that actually mentioned income, namely this: > Its foray into the slave insurance business did not prove to be lucrative: The company ended up paying out nearly as much in death claims — about $232,000 in today’s dollars — as it received in annual payments ?
mzw_mzw 10y ago
> It's like the past has no meaning at all right? It's all just historical trivia? It depends. Is there anything actionable we can or should do based on this knowledge? > It's a shame you're not more brave. If you had the courage to state your intentions more plainly we wouldn't need to play these games would we? How, precisely, does hiding behind words help anybody? What, precisely, are you accusing me of? Go on, say it explicitly. I'm all ears.