4 ms·

Reparations (in general) aren't really about punishing descendants for their ancestors transgressions, it's about balancing out the systemic oppression and inhe

Reparations (in general) aren't really about punishing descendants for their ancestors transgressions, it's about balancing out the systemic oppression and inherent handicap that is/was affecting a given population. Granted, it's not always like that but it's incorrect to claim it's specifically about punishing later generations. As US reparations is the first example let's use that. it's less "screw those white people because they don't deserve it after what their ancestors did" and more "this group of people are actively struggling because some assholes decided they weren't going to treat them as people for 300 years, we as a society are somewhat responsible for that so let's try and give them a hand up to where they would have been" Also, in case the "yes but white people struggle also" argument is in the forefront of your mind, yes they deserve help too. Helping the lees fortunate isn't a zero-sum game. Original sin is indeed bullshit, but that's not what this is.

ethbr0 3y ago
> Helping the [less] fortunate isn't a zero-sum game. Yes, it is, and it's fine to be honest about that. I'm not less fortunate. I support helping the less fortunate more. And I realize doing so is going to require sacrifice on my part -- I'm going to have to pay more in taxes/redress to fund that help. The difference is that morally, I find it hard to have a roof over my head, a bed to sleep in at night, security provided, and food every day... and quibble over my marginal tax rate, versus someone who doesn't have those things. But then, I've always looked at income as society's money rather than fundamentally mine. I am able to earn what I earn because I exist in a broader organization and society.
- majormajor 3y ago
  People can add value to the system through their actions. This goes back to one of the reasons for the private property, market-based economic systems - the idea of improvements, of non-zero-sum benefits. The cliche of making the pie bigger instead of just fighting over the size of our individual slices. Many paths more commonly taken by the less fortunate are themselves net negative to society as a whole. Like crime or drug addiction/disease that socialized programs end up paying for. So if we could be effective in redirecting people from those paths to healthily contributing ones instead, we could get to positive-sum. I'm already paying a lot of money for "today's result" things like property insurance, incarceration, and first responders for people, in the long run is taking action to fight the root problem more expensive? (One of today's problem is that we mostly try to intervene at adolescence or later, at which point a ton of damage has already been done.
  - ethbr0 3y ago
    Preemptive intervention has never been politically palatable in democracies. A concrete bad outcome is necessary to galvanize action. Look how often even SNAP gets shade, and that's literally about feeding people. But democracy worst form of government, except for all the other ones, etc. etc.
- NilMostChill 3y ago
  > Yes, it is, and it's fine to be honest about that. No it isn't , it's usually framed that way for politically derived reasons. Helping one less fortunate person doesn't have to take directly take from another less fortunate person, there are more than just the less fortunate in the game. it's an often parroted point right now, but if the ultra rich were taxed at the same rate as everyone else ( in whatever region was appropriate ) there would be a large influx of money that could be used to improve public services, support networks, education etc. I personally don't think it would be used for that in any meaningful way, the system as a whole is broken, but it could in theory. > I'm not less fortunate. > I support helping the less fortunate more. Agreed, same > And I realize doing so is going to require sacrifice on my part -- I'm going to have to pay more in taxes/redress to fund that help. Also agreed, in principle, but what you can personally provide pales in insignificance when compared to the sheer grinding machine that modern capitalism has become. It's similar to "no plastic straws to stop climate change", yes, but also how about the 80+ % of actual climate change caused by the fossil fuel industries. less of a "whataboutism" and more of a yes, but also fix the bigger fucking problem.
  - ethbr0 3y ago
    Two things can both be true. It's a zero sum game, and it's the morally right thing to do. Part of the annoying thing about the modern progressive movement is how they'll twist themselves in knots to market something, when they could just say "Yes, this sucks for some people. But it's better for everyone." (Which, don't get me wrong, what passes for the modern conservative movement is even loonier about their marketing) But christ, just call a thing what it is.
    - NilMostChill 3y ago
      > Two things can both be true. That two things can be true makes sense. > It's a zero sum game, and it's the morally right thing to do. These two things can be true, they aren't in this case, but they can be. In case it's a misunderstanding i'm going to state clearly, with emphasis: > Helping the ~ [less] fortunate ~ isn't a zero-sum game. Helping all people everywhere might be ( i haven't really considered that enough to have a solid opinion ) but helping a subset of people without impacting another subset of people isn't zero sum when the sum of those subsets isn't the whole. In numbers: The whole = 10 ----- Less fortunate group a = 2 Less fortunate group b = 2 Others = 6 ----- It's possible to get group a to 3 without bringing group b down to 1, because helping the less fortunate groups isn't zero sum. I'm simplifying here because the whole being a fixed 10 isn't accurate either, but it does illustrate my point. > But christ, just call a thing what it is. I will, thanks ? edit: my tiny maths failed me, updated numbers
alistairSH 3y ago
Reparations (in general) aren't really about punishing descendants for their ancestors transgressions, it's about balancing out the systemic oppression and inherent handicap that is/was affecting a given population. Continuing with the US slavery example... if systemic oppression and inherent handicaps exist, is a direct transfer of funds really a solution? It's a one-hit-wonder that might appease some voters in the short term but doesn't get at the root of any current problem. Blacks in US are largely less able to obtain health care (for myriad reasons - less money, worse insurance, mistrust of the medical profession, etc). A lump sum of $15k to every Black person in the US doesn't fix the problem. $15k buys them one major medical treatment, if that. Same for education. A lump some might put a single generation through college. But, if there are systemic impediments to Blacks attending college (money, quality of primary and secondary education, etc), a lump sum transfer doesn't fix it. At best, it creates a generation of better educated Blacks who might push their kids into college, but all the other structural problems still exist. Basically, we should address those problems head-on and with solutions that solve the problem permanently (or as close as possible).
- tough 3y ago
  [flagged]
- wholinator2 3y ago
  Does anyone know what those solutions are?
- NilMostChill 3y ago
  > Continuing with the US slavery example... if systemic oppression and inherent handicaps exist, is a direct transfer of funds really a solution? It's a one-hit-wonder that might appease some voters in the short term but doesn't get at the root of any current problem. Systematic oppression and/or long term ramifications of period of oppression is provably true. ignoring the politics of it i don't think a straight up cash injection would be an efficient means of solving any of the mid to long term problems, but it is certainly an effective measure in helping short term survival. The difference between "better access to education and employment for my kids so they can live better lives" vs "food and medicine so my children don't die this month" > A lump sum of $15k to every Black person in the US doesn't fix the problem. $15k buys them one major medical treatment, if that. Though i think i know what you mean, "15k to every black person" is fairly broad and i think a bit reductive in this case, it would probably need to be something weighted against need and how much the person was affected by the situation being addressed by the funds. Problem is it's really difficult if not impossible to do that effectively, think of it like a whole society version of a class action lawsuit, except the payout amount is directly tied to the level of effect the original issue has had on each person, individually. To be clear, this doesn't mean "non-black person X" doesn't get support and help. Ideally this would need to be something on top of an already working support system for everybody. Everyone gets equitable support up to a certain level, certain groups get additional support where needed because to get them to an equitable level they need additional support as they've started at a lower starting point due to whatever fuckery occurred way back when This is some utopia-level idealism though and I'm not expecting it to happen in the real world, but a good faith attempt would be nice. > Same for education. A lump some might put a single generation through college. But, if there are systemic impediments to Blacks attending college (money, quality of primary and secondary education, etc), a lump sum transfer doesn't fix it. It doesn't fix all of it, but it might fix some of it in an incidental way, though as i said, lump sum probably isn't a good strategy for long term fixes. > At best, it creates a generation of better educated Blacks who might push their kids into college, but all the other structural problems still exist. Yes, but the overall bump in education (assuming education is a reliable means of measuring future quality of life) would go some way to beginning to fix the structural problems. > Basically, we should address those problems head-on and with solutions that solve the problem permanently (or as close as possible). Agreed, but that should also be part of a plan to alleviate the short and mid term problems as well.

ethbr0 3y ago

> Helping the [less] fortunate isn't a zero-sum game. Yes, it is, and it's fine to be honest about that. I'm not less fortunate. I support helping the less fortunate more. And I realize doing so is going to require sacrifice on my part -- I'm going to have to pay more in taxes/redress to fund that help. The difference is that morally, I find it hard to have a roof over my head, a bed to sleep in at night, security provided, and food every day... and quibble over my marginal tax rate, versus someone who doesn't have those things. But then, I've always looked at income as society's money rather than fundamentally mine. I am able to earn what I earn because I exist in a broader organization and society.

majormajor 3y ago
People can add value to the system through their actions. This goes back to one of the reasons for the private property, market-based economic systems - the idea of improvements, of non-zero-sum benefits. The cliche of making the pie bigger instead of just fighting over the size of our individual slices. Many paths more commonly taken by the less fortunate are themselves net negative to society as a whole. Like crime or drug addiction/disease that socialized programs end up paying for. So if we could be effective in redirecting people from those paths to healthily contributing ones instead, we could get to positive-sum. I'm already paying a lot of money for "today's result" things like property insurance, incarceration, and first responders for people, in the long run is taking action to fight the root problem more expensive? (One of today's problem is that we mostly try to intervene at adolescence or later, at which point a ton of damage has already been done.
- ethbr0 3y ago
  Preemptive intervention has never been politically palatable in democracies. A concrete bad outcome is necessary to galvanize action. Look how often even SNAP gets shade, and that's literally about feeding people. But democracy worst form of government, except for all the other ones, etc. etc.
NilMostChill 3y ago
> Yes, it is, and it's fine to be honest about that. No it isn't , it's usually framed that way for politically derived reasons. Helping one less fortunate person doesn't have to take directly take from another less fortunate person, there are more than just the less fortunate in the game. it's an often parroted point right now, but if the ultra rich were taxed at the same rate as everyone else ( in whatever region was appropriate ) there would be a large influx of money that could be used to improve public services, support networks, education etc. I personally don't think it would be used for that in any meaningful way, the system as a whole is broken, but it could in theory. > I'm not less fortunate. > I support helping the less fortunate more. Agreed, same > And I realize doing so is going to require sacrifice on my part -- I'm going to have to pay more in taxes/redress to fund that help. Also agreed, in principle, but what you can personally provide pales in insignificance when compared to the sheer grinding machine that modern capitalism has become. It's similar to "no plastic straws to stop climate change", yes, but also how about the 80+ % of actual climate change caused by the fossil fuel industries. less of a "whataboutism" and more of a yes, but also fix the bigger fucking problem.
- ethbr0 3y ago
  Two things can both be true. It's a zero sum game, and it's the morally right thing to do. Part of the annoying thing about the modern progressive movement is how they'll twist themselves in knots to market something, when they could just say "Yes, this sucks for some people. But it's better for everyone." (Which, don't get me wrong, what passes for the modern conservative movement is even loonier about their marketing) But christ, just call a thing what it is.
  - NilMostChill 3y ago
    > Two things can both be true. That two things can be true makes sense. > It's a zero sum game, and it's the morally right thing to do. These two things can be true, they aren't in this case, but they can be. In case it's a misunderstanding i'm going to state clearly, with emphasis: > Helping the ~ [less] fortunate ~ isn't a zero-sum game. Helping all people everywhere might be ( i haven't really considered that enough to have a solid opinion ) but helping a subset of people without impacting another subset of people isn't zero sum when the sum of those subsets isn't the whole. In numbers: The whole = 10 ----- Less fortunate group a = 2 Less fortunate group b = 2 Others = 6 ----- It's possible to get group a to 3 without bringing group b down to 1, because helping the less fortunate groups isn't zero sum. I'm simplifying here because the whole being a fixed 10 isn't accurate either, but it does illustrate my point. > But christ, just call a thing what it is. I will, thanks ? edit: my tiny maths failed me, updated numbers

alistairSH 3y ago

Reparations (in general) aren't really about punishing descendants for their ancestors transgressions, it's about balancing out the systemic oppression and inherent handicap that is/was affecting a given population. Continuing with the US slavery example... if systemic oppression and inherent handicaps exist, is a direct transfer of funds really a solution? It's a one-hit-wonder that might appease some voters in the short term but doesn't get at the root of any current problem. Blacks in US are largely less able to obtain health care (for myriad reasons - less money, worse insurance, mistrust of the medical profession, etc). A lump sum of $15k to every Black person in the US doesn't fix the problem. $15k buys them one major medical treatment, if that. Same for education. A lump some might put a single generation through college. But, if there are systemic impediments to Blacks attending college (money, quality of primary and secondary education, etc), a lump sum transfer doesn't fix it. At best, it creates a generation of better educated Blacks who might push their kids into college, but all the other structural problems still exist. Basically, we should address those problems head-on and with solutions that solve the problem permanently (or as close as possible).

tough 3y ago
[flagged]
wholinator2 3y ago
Does anyone know what those solutions are?
NilMostChill 3y ago
> Continuing with the US slavery example... if systemic oppression and inherent handicaps exist, is a direct transfer of funds really a solution? It's a one-hit-wonder that might appease some voters in the short term but doesn't get at the root of any current problem. Systematic oppression and/or long term ramifications of period of oppression is provably true. ignoring the politics of it i don't think a straight up cash injection would be an efficient means of solving any of the mid to long term problems, but it is certainly an effective measure in helping short term survival. The difference between "better access to education and employment for my kids so they can live better lives" vs "food and medicine so my children don't die this month" > A lump sum of $15k to every Black person in the US doesn't fix the problem. $15k buys them one major medical treatment, if that. Though i think i know what you mean, "15k to every black person" is fairly broad and i think a bit reductive in this case, it would probably need to be something weighted against need and how much the person was affected by the situation being addressed by the funds. Problem is it's really difficult if not impossible to do that effectively, think of it like a whole society version of a class action lawsuit, except the payout amount is directly tied to the level of effect the original issue has had on each person, individually. To be clear, this doesn't mean "non-black person X" doesn't get support and help. Ideally this would need to be something on top of an already working support system for everybody. Everyone gets equitable support up to a certain level, certain groups get additional support where needed because to get them to an equitable level they need additional support as they've started at a lower starting point due to whatever fuckery occurred way back when This is some utopia-level idealism though and I'm not expecting it to happen in the real world, but a good faith attempt would be nice. > Same for education. A lump some might put a single generation through college. But, if there are systemic impediments to Blacks attending college (money, quality of primary and secondary education, etc), a lump sum transfer doesn't fix it. It doesn't fix all of it, but it might fix some of it in an incidental way, though as i said, lump sum probably isn't a good strategy for long term fixes. > At best, it creates a generation of better educated Blacks who might push their kids into college, but all the other structural problems still exist. Yes, but the overall bump in education (assuming education is a reliable means of measuring future quality of life) would go some way to beginning to fix the structural problems. > Basically, we should address those problems head-on and with solutions that solve the problem permanently (or as close as possible). Agreed, but that should also be part of a plan to alleviate the short and mid term problems as well.