5 ms·

"Achieving reparations" is difficult language for me to accept. It is "thinking past the sale" that does not treat the subject with the necessary fair-minded bi

"Achieving reparations" is difficult language for me to accept. It is "thinking past the sale" that does not treat the subject with the necessary fair-minded big picture consideration. It's not clear that reparations are a good idea in practice, or something to be "achieved," or even strived for (they might do more harm in practice to the group they intend to protect, as many well-intentioned and politically extremist ideologies do) not to mention any considerations involving whether it would be possible to sustain, or affordable, etc. Be careful with your thinking if you care about being even-handed with your empathy. Being empathetic is a fantastic thing, but don't allow cynical people to hijack your empathy.

throwaway535 6y ago
> It's not clear that reparations are a good idea in practice, or something to be "achieved," or even strived for (they might do more harm in practice to the group they intend to protect, This is a very patronizing argument. If someone breaks into your bank account and steals your cash, then later is caught. There is no valid line of reasoning that goes "well I'll only give the money back if you tell me how you plan to spend it first". "Oh, you planned to spend it all on bubble gum and sweets? Then no I don't need to give it back, because I think that might do you more harm than good." Argue on the merits of the topic, not based on knowing what's best for people.
- OptionX 6y ago
  Well, by your own analogy. If both you and the robber have been dead for 300+ years would it make sense to make the robbers family pay your descendants for it? Keep in mind none of the people had contact with anyone remotely involved with the original robbery or had any way to influence it or impact it. Should the sons pay for the sins of the fathers? Pretty sure I could find someone in your ancestral line that commit a crime, can I convict you for it? So, yeah, the merits are kinda low to.
  - throwaway535 6y ago
    Great discussion, let's continue. So my dad goes and steals your dad's land. He give me the land as his son. I split it in half and give half to a friend of mine. The investigation occurs and determine this land was stolen and should be returned. I don't think the argument of, "sorry won't return it because I didn't steal it, my dad did" holds much water. Nor the argument of, "nope I won't return it because a friend of mine that has nothing to do with the theft is benefiting from it" holds much water either as reasons for your family to not get their land returned. And related, possession of stolen goods is a fairly common legal concept. Regardless of penalty, at minimum once discovered the goods are returned, even if they'd previously be sold or given to someone else. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_of_stolen_goods#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_of_stolen_goods#Uni...
    - OptionX 6y ago
      Slavery only counts as stolen good if you still consider black people property :)
      - throwaway535 6y ago
        Your comment is incorrect. It was their wages that were stolen that we're discussing.
        OptionX 6y ago
        This might come as a surprise to you, but being a slave is not in fact a job. If there were any wages to be stolen in the first place they wouldn't be slaves. But considering how many times you've been wrong and are just moving the goalpost to keep arguing and are behind a throwaway I assume at this point your just trying to waste time and lowkey troll.
    - ericb 6y ago
      Sure, except randomly distribute the goods, and then forcefully extract payback from many who were never involved, and many who fought to prevent the theft, and now you're getting closer. Will there later be reparations for the reparations taken now from uninvolved parties since the point of reparations is that stealing labor and wealth is wrong and must be corrected via payment in later generations? If we take from them we're perpetuating the same sort of theft? I agree if we were omniscient it would be "right," but we're far far from that. Also, let's say there's a reparation payment, but it doesn't rectify inequality, because there are more systemic problems at play, like local tax revenue funding local schools, so poor towns have poor schools. After "reparations," you don't think voters will think "we paid reparations, stop complaining." If the purpose is "righting a wrong" I think the tool is too blunt and will create many more wrongs. If the purpose is to "fix inequality", I think it won't address the underlying structural problems, but will "check the box" and absolve responsibilities.
chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> It's not clear that reparations are a good idea in practice, or something to be "achieved," or even strived for (they might do more harm in practice to the group they intend to protect, as many well-intentioned and politically extremist ideologies do) not to mention any considerations involving whether it would be possible to sustain, or affordable, etc. These are important considerations that impact directly on the form that reparations "should" take. However they are orthogonal to the merits of the claim for reparations.
toiletfuneral 6y ago
This comment feels weasel-y, its like saying "be careful returning stolen property to the rightful owner's descendants, they may not be as 'good' with it as the thief"

throwaway535 6y ago

> It's not clear that reparations are a good idea in practice, or something to be "achieved," or even strived for (they might do more harm in practice to the group they intend to protect, This is a very patronizing argument. If someone breaks into your bank account and steals your cash, then later is caught. There is no valid line of reasoning that goes "well I'll only give the money back if you tell me how you plan to spend it first". "Oh, you planned to spend it all on bubble gum and sweets? Then no I don't need to give it back, because I think that might do you more harm than good." Argue on the merits of the topic, not based on knowing what's best for people.

OptionX 6y ago
Well, by your own analogy. If both you and the robber have been dead for 300+ years would it make sense to make the robbers family pay your descendants for it? Keep in mind none of the people had contact with anyone remotely involved with the original robbery or had any way to influence it or impact it. Should the sons pay for the sins of the fathers? Pretty sure I could find someone in your ancestral line that commit a crime, can I convict you for it? So, yeah, the merits are kinda low to.
- throwaway535 6y ago
  Great discussion, let's continue. So my dad goes and steals your dad's land. He give me the land as his son. I split it in half and give half to a friend of mine. The investigation occurs and determine this land was stolen and should be returned. I don't think the argument of, "sorry won't return it because I didn't steal it, my dad did" holds much water. Nor the argument of, "nope I won't return it because a friend of mine that has nothing to do with the theft is benefiting from it" holds much water either as reasons for your family to not get their land returned. And related, possession of stolen goods is a fairly common legal concept. Regardless of penalty, at minimum once discovered the goods are returned, even if they'd previously be sold or given to someone else. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_of_stolen_goods#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_of_stolen_goods#Uni...
  - OptionX 6y ago
    Slavery only counts as stolen good if you still consider black people property :)
    - throwaway535 6y ago
      Your comment is incorrect. It was their wages that were stolen that we're discussing.
      - OptionX 6y ago
        This might come as a surprise to you, but being a slave is not in fact a job. If there were any wages to be stolen in the first place they wouldn't be slaves. But considering how many times you've been wrong and are just moving the goalpost to keep arguing and are behind a throwaway I assume at this point your just trying to waste time and lowkey troll.
  - ericb 6y ago
    Sure, except randomly distribute the goods, and then forcefully extract payback from many who were never involved, and many who fought to prevent the theft, and now you're getting closer. Will there later be reparations for the reparations taken now from uninvolved parties since the point of reparations is that stealing labor and wealth is wrong and must be corrected via payment in later generations? If we take from them we're perpetuating the same sort of theft? I agree if we were omniscient it would be "right," but we're far far from that. Also, let's say there's a reparation payment, but it doesn't rectify inequality, because there are more systemic problems at play, like local tax revenue funding local schools, so poor towns have poor schools. After "reparations," you don't think voters will think "we paid reparations, stop complaining." If the purpose is "righting a wrong" I think the tool is too blunt and will create many more wrongs. If the purpose is to "fix inequality", I think it won't address the underlying structural problems, but will "check the box" and absolve responsibilities.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago

> It's not clear that reparations are a good idea in practice, or something to be "achieved," or even strived for (they might do more harm in practice to the group they intend to protect, as many well-intentioned and politically extremist ideologies do) not to mention any considerations involving whether it would be possible to sustain, or affordable, etc. These are important considerations that impact directly on the form that reparations "should" take. However they are orthogonal to the merits of the claim for reparations.

toiletfuneral 6y ago

This comment feels weasel-y, its like saying "be careful returning stolen property to the rightful owner's descendants, they may not be as 'good' with it as the thief"