4 ms·

> The game you are referring to is one in which you presuppose dividing people into ‘teams’. No, you're arguing against an artifact the analogy instead of acti

> The game you are referring to is one in which you presuppose dividing people into ‘teams’. No, you're arguing against an artifact the analogy instead of acting in good faith to understand the meaning. Consider a game where all players are independent, but the "referee" arbitrarily chose half of the players to get an advantage. Let that be team 1, and everyone else be team 2. We got a new referee in the 2nd half, and that ref wants it to be a fair game; would it be unfair for them to acknowledging and try to correct for the 1st ref's team choices? (Now if you argue that there is no "referee" in real life, I'm going to assume you are being willingly obstinate.) > A non-racist solution is to support anyone who has been less advantaged in wealth building. So socialism, totally agree, in general that is the direction we should move back towards. But take note that you'll then have minorities who were forced to work 10x harder than their white peers say, "wtf?! I put in all that extra work to pull myself up by my bootstraps, and now you're just going to hand out success to everyone? I feel disenfranchised!" In a "fair" race, that person who worked 10x harder than their peers should be appreciably further along in the "game". The only way to make that correction is to acknowledge the divide already drawn by the first "referee".

zepto 5y ago
As far as I can see you just restated the idea of dividing the world into teams based on race. That isn’t an artifact of the analogy. That is the basis of racism. We can accept that a game like this was played, stop playing it, and work to undo the damage without continuing to play the game. >> A non-racist solution is to support anyone who has been less advantaged in wealth building. > So socialism, totally agree, in general that is the direction we should move back towards. No, I don’t view socialism favorably and it’s not implied. Creating institutions or programs that facilitate higher levels of economic participation by those who start with less does not imply socialism.
- teawrecks 5y ago
  No, no individual or group consciously decided how races should be divided, that happened naturally. What you're saying its that acknowledging the divide exists is racist, which is the classic "color blind" excuse.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > No, no individual or group consciously decided how races should be divided, I think the Portuguese, the British, the Spanish, the French, the Dutch, and the Danish consciously chose Africans to be imported as slaves to America. Don’t you? Jim Crow laws were consciously written by people who were deciding how races should be divided. Race isn’t even a natural category. > that happened naturally. Are you seriously suggesting that slavery and Jim Crow happened ‘naturally’? > What you're saying its that acknowledging the divide exists is racist, which is the classic "color blind" excuse. This is false. If you can find somewhere I argue for that, you’ll be able to quote it. Here is something I did say: “We don’t have to ignore the effects of racism. There is nothing wrong with looking at the kinds of disadvantage it has produced and then acting to support those who are impacted.”
    - teawrecks 5y ago
      > Are you seriously suggesting that slavery happened ‘naturally’? Are you seriously suggesting that humans aren't naturally occurring? Are you suggesting that there is something inherent about the "Portuguese, British" etc that gave them the power and influence needed to enslave other races? Of course not. Randomly populate a geologically non uniform landmass with humans, and over time some will exploit natural advantages over others based on arbitrary factors. The fact that the British colonized everyone wasn't because they were somehow genetically superior or more predisposed to colonization, they just randomly got dealt the best hand. > If you can find somewhere I argue for that, you’ll be able to quote it. I'm referring to your core argument that, > A non-racist solution is to support anyone who has been less advantaged in wealth building. You're saying that even though we can clearly see how past societies drew their lines when determining how to stunt the "wealth building" of future generations, we should rotate that line so that it's orthogonal to race and only focus on the people who have had the most trouble building wealth. Consider a hypothetical scenario where we had a "perfectly equal past", where there was no slavery or systemic racism and everyone had been treated fairly based on their own ability. Even in this world, you'd still have some people who fall short at "building wealth" compared to others. You'd still see a "line" drawn based on natural ability. This is the only scenario in which I'd agree with you. But the natural ability line isn't the only one that history has drawn. We can see the lines that history drew. Lines based on race, based on geography, based on gender, etc. and I think it would be ignorant of us to ignore the existence of any of those lines. It's not an either/or situation. One day, I hope to get to a point where we're approaching a "perfectly equal past", but until then we have more than 1 line to account for.

zepto 5y ago

As far as I can see you just restated the idea of dividing the world into teams based on race. That isn’t an artifact of the analogy. That is the basis of racism. We can accept that a game like this was played, stop playing it, and work to undo the damage without continuing to play the game. >> A non-racist solution is to support anyone who has been less advantaged in wealth building. > So socialism, totally agree, in general that is the direction we should move back towards. No, I don’t view socialism favorably and it’s not implied. Creating institutions or programs that facilitate higher levels of economic participation by those who start with less does not imply socialism.

teawrecks 5y ago
No, no individual or group consciously decided how races should be divided, that happened naturally. What you're saying its that acknowledging the divide exists is racist, which is the classic "color blind" excuse.
- zepto 5y ago
  > No, no individual or group consciously decided how races should be divided, I think the Portuguese, the British, the Spanish, the French, the Dutch, and the Danish consciously chose Africans to be imported as slaves to America. Don’t you? Jim Crow laws were consciously written by people who were deciding how races should be divided. Race isn’t even a natural category. > that happened naturally. Are you seriously suggesting that slavery and Jim Crow happened ‘naturally’? > What you're saying its that acknowledging the divide exists is racist, which is the classic "color blind" excuse. This is false. If you can find somewhere I argue for that, you’ll be able to quote it. Here is something I did say: “We don’t have to ignore the effects of racism. There is nothing wrong with looking at the kinds of disadvantage it has produced and then acting to support those who are impacted.”
  - teawrecks 5y ago
    > Are you seriously suggesting that slavery happened ‘naturally’? Are you seriously suggesting that humans aren't naturally occurring? Are you suggesting that there is something inherent about the "Portuguese, British" etc that gave them the power and influence needed to enslave other races? Of course not. Randomly populate a geologically non uniform landmass with humans, and over time some will exploit natural advantages over others based on arbitrary factors. The fact that the British colonized everyone wasn't because they were somehow genetically superior or more predisposed to colonization, they just randomly got dealt the best hand. > If you can find somewhere I argue for that, you’ll be able to quote it. I'm referring to your core argument that, > A non-racist solution is to support anyone who has been less advantaged in wealth building. You're saying that even though we can clearly see how past societies drew their lines when determining how to stunt the "wealth building" of future generations, we should rotate that line so that it's orthogonal to race and only focus on the people who have had the most trouble building wealth. Consider a hypothetical scenario where we had a "perfectly equal past", where there was no slavery or systemic racism and everyone had been treated fairly based on their own ability. Even in this world, you'd still have some people who fall short at "building wealth" compared to others. You'd still see a "line" drawn based on natural ability. This is the only scenario in which I'd agree with you. But the natural ability line isn't the only one that history has drawn. We can see the lines that history drew. Lines based on race, based on geography, based on gender, etc. and I think it would be ignorant of us to ignore the existence of any of those lines. It's not an either/or situation. One day, I hope to get to a point where we're approaching a "perfectly equal past", but until then we have more than 1 line to account for.