20 ms·

> And then I think: you can't just stop doing a bad thing and pretend it didn't happen. You've got to try to make things right. Here's where your thinking goes

> And then I think: you can't just stop doing a bad thing and pretend it didn't happen. You've got to try to make things right. Here's where your thinking goes askew, you can't simply draw a boundary around a subset of people and declare that an agentic thing. Groups of people don't have guilt or automatic responsibility, only individuals do. Thinking of very diverse groups of people as single entities is how you get sentiments like "Muslims did 9/11 and they must pay" without considering that the tendency-towards-9/11-ness might not carry over to the entire set of "Muslims". Less than half of Americans were even alive in 1971 and no one is alive from the days of US slavery. Thinking "those who have inherited benefits due to negative treatment of African Americans should transfer wealth to the descendents of those African Americans" is a separate idea to race based affirmative action. Race based AA would see the children of a pair of Ukrainian immigrants put below the children of a pair of Ethiopian immigrants, even though neither group has anything to do with slavery.

blackle 3y ago
9/11 was not a systemic injustice, it was perpetrated by a small group of extremists in a single act. Racial discrimination was a systemic injustice perpetrated by lawmakers, enabled by an unjust society, with country-wide effects lasting multiple decades (if not centuries). It's not a logical fallacy to think that a systemic injustice requires a systemic solution.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  But the solution is to remove the injustice. That's not what's contended here, I think.
  - mcv 3y ago
    It is what I'm discussing. Not sure what else there is.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- jimbob45 3y ago
  it was perpetrated by a small group of extremists A small group of extremists cheered on by a vast number of international Muslims worldwide and domestically.
  - mkoubaa 3y ago
    I was 10 when it happened, and bullied because of my muslim name at school for years afterwards. I went to mosque, and out of the literally hundreds of muslims I knew everyone to the person condemned 9/11. I don't know where you get the idea that there was broad support for those assholes in my community, but people who said the things that you say caused a lot of harm to me and my family. I thought you should know that.
    - jimbob45 3y ago
      Are we to stop bullying Nazis because of the actions of John Rabe? Should we allow our children to join Scientology because of the actions of Leah Remini? I'm happy that you're a bright and honorable person but the Muslim community has a long and sustained history of violence and calling for violence against those who don't deserve it. Your choice to continue associating with it will naturally draw the ire of those wronged by the Muslim community. And before you say that it's not just Muslims or that Muslims aren't the worst offenders - I agree. That's why I chose to leave the Christian faith years ago.
      - mkoubaa 3y ago
        I have nothing but respect for the Christian faith and community. I think that throwing them or another community under the bus for the purpose of making a point would be irresponsible and only increases the amount of hate in the world. I also have nothing but respect for people who conscientiously leave their faith, whether it's Christianity or Islam or anything else. It's not easy to leave a community and I find it courageous and admirable. Thank you for sharing your journey. Your understanding of Muslims is a narrative that I don't agree with, but nevertheless I won't say that my understanding of world is better than yours, only that I come to different conclusions, and you must at least concede that Muslims do not feel that they subscribe to a violent and hateful ideology. But even understanding the world as you do, it is not inevitable to reach the conclusion that it is acceptable to collectively punish all of us. I have the privilege of living a happy and fulfilling life, and the ire of strangers who are prejudiced against me is not likely to change that. I am mostly objecting to the idea of collective punishment which has caused, is causing, and will cause countless suffering to undeserving men, women, and children. Even people you hate are capable of feeling as much pain as you are.
- yakshaving_jgt 3y ago
  Ok, but then the question is: how much? How much in reparations should be paid for anyone to consider the problem solved? What dollar amount should be paid out so that people feel they are satisfied and never ask for reparations again?
otikik 3y ago
> Groups of people don't have guilt or automatic responsibility, only individuals do. Then the words “accomplice”, “collaborator” and “facilitator” would not exist. I believe countries, families and things in between can be guilty of stuff.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  “accomplice”, “collaborator” and “facilitator” are all singular nouns rather than collective nouns.
  - Jcowell 3y ago
    Singular nouns can still refer to a group of people. there’s only one United States of America but there country refers to the people that live in it. “Italy was an accomplice to Nazi Germany during WW2”
- throw10920 3y ago
  > I believe countries, families and things in between can be guilty of stuff. Sure. When those things have internal organization and hierarchy and structures that lead to them making a consensus decision and acting as a whole, then yes, they can be "guilty" for some values of guilty. Where's the decision-making system for all white people?
blueboo 3y ago
Groups were advantaged over groups. Your line of reasoning itself draws a boundary--in history--and thereby quite conveniently sidesteps the issue. And yes, a pair of Ethiopian immigrants, even in 2023, face structural racism over and above their Ukrainian friends, alas, arising from America's legacy of slavery -- hence affrimative action.
- lom888 3y ago
  But perpetuating the logic of groups being advantaged over groups only keeps the identitarian mindset going. By openly favoring certain groups the discrimination never ends. All you need to do is look at India where the active discrimination in favor of scheduled castes goes on ad infinitum to see that the effect of any discrimination amplifies sectarianism. The line needs to be drawn somewhere. You don't fight fire with fire, you fight it with water. You don't solve discrimination with more discrimination, you fight it by having people not accept the logic of identitarianism.
  - mcv 3y ago
    The discrimination doesn't go away if you ignore it. The discrimination has continued. It still is. Not forced by the law any more, but still many times perpetrated by individuals based on other individuals' membership or a perceived group. That is the real identitarian mindset you should be worried about.
    - pbhjpbhj 3y ago
      Discrimination goes away when you stop discriminating, perpetuating it doesn't stop it. It's like you're saying you hit me, hitting is wrong, so I'm going to hit you back ... and you think that will end hitting for good. Er, if it's wrong, stop doing it.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    > perpetuating the logic of groups being advantaged over groups only keeps the identitarian mindset going maybe, maybe not - the goal, however, is not to "not keep the 'identitarian' mindset going", it is to right past wrongs, make those wronged people whole, and only then ignore identity, as long as everyone else can do it too.
mcv 3y ago
I'm not talking about guilt, I'm talking about getting hurt. Black Americans were quite clearly discriminated against as a group. Your examples are all about punishment, I'm talking about lifting them up, correcting the wrongs, reimbursing the damage done. It's not about benefits they inherited, but obstacles they inherited, opportunities that were denied to them, unjust punishment that they received. This has been structural for a ridiculously long time, and it's still not gone. Black people still receive more severe punishment for the same crimes, are still often denied opportunities that are available to white people (months ago there was an article here about how black founders couldn't get funding if they didn't get a white co-founder who was then assumed by VCs to be the real CEO). Even if they are technically equal before the law, that still doesn't mean that they're treated as equal in practice.
- notSupplied 3y ago
  This SCOTUS case had heavy emphasis on the fact Affirmative Action as it is practiced at elite institutions today, has a net slightly negative effect on whites, and an extremely large negative effect on Asians applicants. It is in practice, a large transfer of elite diplomas from Asian to Black students. Black people have indeed suffered greatly historically. Yet an awkward question remains: Why are Asians paying the price?
- MaokaiLin 3y ago
  Surely black americans are hurt, and it's only fair to lift them up, but at what cost? In these cases the asian americans are getting hurt because of it. Why not help lift asian americans up as well? They are also discriminated over a century after all, and now they are paying the price for reparations? Why is that not a discrimination itself?
- sokoloff 3y ago
  > Your examples are all about punishment, I'm talking about lifting them up, correcting the wrongs, reimbursing the damage done. Lifting one group up is almost always at the expense of other groups, which is isomorphic to punishment. If you have a way to lift some up without any disadvantage to others, we should probably just do that to an infinite extent to everyone.
paiute 3y ago
> Groups of people don't have guilt or automatic responsibility, only individuals do. Humans are a eusocial species, and history is full of group guilt, plight, dominance. I do agree with the direction of your thought though. We should strive at the individual level.
Misdicorl 3y ago
"you can't simply draw a boundary... Https if people don't have responsibility... Only individuals do" I think this is specious reasoning. We accept this just fine in other tort circumstances e.g 1) lawsuits against a city after miscarriage of justice 2) lawsuits against corporations when X happens. Often individual responsibility will be a portion of the trial but to my understanding it is 1) a secondary or even tertiary concern 2) used to deflect blame from the group I think in general not allowing blame to be allocated to individuals will lead to poor results. We need methods to call systems bad and curtail them in addition to individuals
- concordDance 3y ago
  Those examples are legal entities with decision-making hierarchies and individuals with the power to exit the group and with limited liability. Racial groupings are not even natural categories (there are tons of ways to divide people up by ethnicity).
  - Misdicorl 3y ago
    I think the relevant grouping to take to task for these issues is federal, state, and local governments (and probably quite a few corporations). Not "white people".
  - krainboltgreene 3y ago
    > Racial groupings are not even natural categories (there are tons of ways to divide people up by ethnicity). No but class action lawsuits do give us two categories.
bandrami 3y ago
[flagged]
- oceanplexian 3y ago
  > It doesn't really have anything to do with "guilt", it has to do with the fact that white middle class intergenerational wealth. Can't you recognize that statements like this are propagating the same insensitivity you are intending to correct? My grandparents were white. They were Argentine and moved to Las Vegas in the 1950s to clean toilets in hotel rooms (And did so for 40 years) so they could raise a family in something resembling a middle class lifestyle. You can't throw a stone very far in the USA and not hear the same or a similar story, at least in my experience. Someone moved here starting with nothing, worked hard, and was able to dramatically increase their standing in life. Integenerational wealth is not common, in fact it is exceedingly rare.
  - bandrami 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - skulk 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - HWR_14 3y ago
    If your grandparents achieved a middle-class life in 1950's America, they owned a home. That home is a form of intergenerational wealth. If they are still alive, your parents or you or another relative will likely get a windfall someday of probably six-figures. Which means that windfall will at the least double the average retirement savings of a median millennial or GenX person.
- jefftk 3y ago
  I'd like to see more redistribution, but lump sum payments to 18yos are not going to be spent thoughtfully.
  - slt2021 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
zacharycohn 3y ago
As an analogy: 1. Life jackets are banned for anyone with brown hair. 2. A very large boat hits an iceberg and sinks. There are a lot of people in the water. None of the brown haired people are allowed life jackets. 3. There is a (for the sake of this silly analogy) rapid discussion, people realize this was probably not a good way to do things, and a new law is passed: people with brown hair are now allowed to wear life jackets! 4. No one gives life jackets to the brown haired people currently in the water. Just because an unjust law is changed does not mean the people who were previously injured by the law are magically no longer injured.
- vacuity 3y ago
  True, though it's still difficult to just give the brown haired people life jackets (and maybe some drowned already). Affirmative action seems as if the few brown haired people who are easily accessible are given life jackets, and "everyone" is happy. My ideas for reform — better public school infra in poorer communities, blah blah (I expound a bit elsewhere) — certainly would be more difficult but give many more brown haired people access to life jackets. Also, don't forget the other drowning people, even if there aren't so many of them compared to brown haired people.
- concordDance 3y ago
  The obvious answer to that seems to be to give everyone in the water without a life jacket a life jacket, regardless of their hair color.
Krollifi 3y ago
> Groups of people don't have guilt or automatic responsibility, only individuals do. Companies and governments can be found guilty of wrong doing. ChatGPT: Yes, both companies and governments can be found guilty of wrongdoing. The extent and process of holding them accountable can vary depending on the jurisdiction and the specific circumstances involved. Companies can face legal consequences for actions such as fraud, environmental violations, or antitrust violations, among others. Similarly, governments can be held accountable through legal means, such as investigations, impeachment, or legal proceedings, for acts that are deemed illegal or in violation of their responsibilities. The nature of the wrongdoing and the applicable laws and regulations determine the process and consequences of holding them accountable. Edit: Havard was ruled against as an organization. Of course organizations can be held responsible for what they do including the government.
semilattice 3y ago
> Groups of people don't have guilt or automatic responsibility, only individuals do. I think the question here is who is entitled to have the 'revenge' or the reparation or the 'affirmative action' People who were persecuted or opressed? or their offspring? For example German government agreed to pay reparation to Jews in (some?) Eastern European countries and Russia, that were alive at the time of WWII and lived on the territories that the Germany attacked. The reparation from what I know were 2,000 or 4,000 USD one time payment. -- So in that model a) the person receiving the reparation had to be alive at the time of the crime. b) had to be on the territory where the crime was committed c) I do not think the person needed to prove that they were directly affected by the crime from what I know the reparation was selective. It did not cover Gypsys, did not cover non-Jews -- I do not know what the right model is. Can a nation be responsible for the crimes their government has committed? For how long? If the answer to the above is 'yes' (that the nation is responsible) -- wouldn't that justify terrorism? wouldn't that justify blood-revenge practice? But that revenge can go for generations, and at some point will be reversed -- that means, in turn, endless wars. -- May be the correct answer is to limit the action of 'righting the wrongs' to the people who were the victims and alive at the time of the crime ? But that does not seem to be fair to the victims either
- vacuity 3y ago
  Life isn't fair. Yay, argument over! Not. Still, I think my as-of-yet unstated point stands. That is, the government should do everything in its power (reasonably speaking) to serve justice to the criminal and support the victim, but that just isn't possible for massive historical grievances. Where there are current issues affecting Jews or whoever else, they should be addressed. Of course, some issues can be resolved with money, while others are more insidious.
tynpeddler 3y ago
> Groups of people don't have guilt or automatic responsibility, only individuals do. This is not exactly correct. Governments are composed of groups of people and governments maintain continuity of responsibility even when all the people in that government are different. Black Americans were discriminated against as a matter of state and federal policy and thus both state and federal government is at fault for the treatment of Black American. There is clear precedent in American law that in such cases, harmed individuals and groups are due financial compensation. Precedent for financial compensation due to government abuse of power is an incredibly old precedent and the only reason Black Americans haven't been compensated for the discrimination they've suffered is because the continuation of racism, the tradition of discrimination and the sheer size of the problem have turned what should be a fairly straightforward legal case into a complicated political question.
- smegger001 3y ago
  When do we stop hold people responsible for the sins of their great great grandfathers? I don't hold a grudge against the British for press-ganging my great^9 grandfather into involuntary navel service. He was taken because he was Irish and near the waterfront at the wrong time. How was his kidnapping, forced labor, and whipping with a cat'o nine materially any different from other forms of slavery? When he escaped by jumping ship and running as far inland as he could he was risking beating whipping and execution if he was ever caught. Is that any different than runaway slaves? Should I get a pay off from the UK because they wronged my family taking my Great^9 grandfather away from his home family and job? They systematically oppressed the Irish for centuries too. His decedents have been mostly poor laborers only edging into middle class with my parents generation. I don't think I deserve anything that would be ridiculous. How about my sons they are 1/16 black on their mothers side even though they look to all appearances to be of blonde haired northern European stock. Do they get any special payments for their ancestors oppression? if not what percentage of your ancestors need to be of a single oppressed group to be owed restitution by the rest of taxpaying society. oh but its was my government shitting on other racial groups. but I didn't vote for them. I usually vote third party and those candidates never win despite having better policy. Yet I am to be held responsible for crimes my ancestors didn't commit (mostly because they were to poor or not emigrated to America yet) and for government policy put in place either before my time or by representatives i voted against. sure they suffered but why should i be penalized via taking more of my income I use to feed my family thus increasing their suffering for reparation to someone i haven't done anything to.
reilly3000 3y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- erenyeager 3y ago
  Thank you for speaking some sense in this thread. It is quite easy if You start to look into it, reparations is about justice. Injustice is perpetuated under the guise of “neutral” policy all the time.
gcanyon 3y ago
It's not about slavery; it's about what's going on in the U.S. right now. Study after study shows disadvantages to being black in America right now. Those disadvantages include, as you point out, echoed effects from discrimination and disadvantage from 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, and further. But they also include immediate effects going on today -- like discrimination based on skin color or hairstyle or choice of name or an imbalanced school system or you name it. Affirmative action is a broad brush, as you say. But to demand that only people whose ancestors actually owned slaves be disadvantaged by affirmative action, and only those whose ancestors actually were slaves benefit from it, ignores the rest of the black experience in America, and is, frankly, offensive. As a bonus, I'll mention that every time I learn something about black history in America, I find a new way to be disappointed in my (our?) ancestors. The most recent thing I learned is that as recently as the '50s and '60s, since hospitals were segregated, blacks often had much worse access to healthcare. As a result, when they needed immediate treatment and no black doctor was available, they would go to a veterinarian for help. That's terrible, but the cherry on the shit sundae is that, if the veterinarian happened to be white, the care had to be rendered surreptitiously, because white people wouldn't take their pets to a vet who had served a black person.

blackle 3y ago

9/11 was not a systemic injustice, it was perpetrated by a small group of extremists in a single act. Racial discrimination was a systemic injustice perpetrated by lawmakers, enabled by an unjust society, with country-wide effects lasting multiple decades (if not centuries). It's not a logical fallacy to think that a systemic injustice requires a systemic solution.

robertlagrant 3y ago
But the solution is to remove the injustice. That's not what's contended here, I think.
- mcv 3y ago
  It is what I'm discussing. Not sure what else there is.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
jimbob45 3y ago
it was perpetrated by a small group of extremists A small group of extremists cheered on by a vast number of international Muslims worldwide and domestically.
- mkoubaa 3y ago
  I was 10 when it happened, and bullied because of my muslim name at school for years afterwards. I went to mosque, and out of the literally hundreds of muslims I knew everyone to the person condemned 9/11. I don't know where you get the idea that there was broad support for those assholes in my community, but people who said the things that you say caused a lot of harm to me and my family. I thought you should know that.
  - jimbob45 3y ago
    Are we to stop bullying Nazis because of the actions of John Rabe? Should we allow our children to join Scientology because of the actions of Leah Remini? I'm happy that you're a bright and honorable person but the Muslim community has a long and sustained history of violence and calling for violence against those who don't deserve it. Your choice to continue associating with it will naturally draw the ire of those wronged by the Muslim community. And before you say that it's not just Muslims or that Muslims aren't the worst offenders - I agree. That's why I chose to leave the Christian faith years ago.
    - mkoubaa 3y ago
      I have nothing but respect for the Christian faith and community. I think that throwing them or another community under the bus for the purpose of making a point would be irresponsible and only increases the amount of hate in the world. I also have nothing but respect for people who conscientiously leave their faith, whether it's Christianity or Islam or anything else. It's not easy to leave a community and I find it courageous and admirable. Thank you for sharing your journey. Your understanding of Muslims is a narrative that I don't agree with, but nevertheless I won't say that my understanding of world is better than yours, only that I come to different conclusions, and you must at least concede that Muslims do not feel that they subscribe to a violent and hateful ideology. But even understanding the world as you do, it is not inevitable to reach the conclusion that it is acceptable to collectively punish all of us. I have the privilege of living a happy and fulfilling life, and the ire of strangers who are prejudiced against me is not likely to change that. I am mostly objecting to the idea of collective punishment which has caused, is causing, and will cause countless suffering to undeserving men, women, and children. Even people you hate are capable of feeling as much pain as you are.
yakshaving_jgt 3y ago
Ok, but then the question is: how much? How much in reparations should be paid for anyone to consider the problem solved? What dollar amount should be paid out so that people feel they are satisfied and never ask for reparations again?

otikik 3y ago

> Groups of people don't have guilt or automatic responsibility, only individuals do. Then the words “accomplice”, “collaborator” and “facilitator” would not exist. I believe countries, families and things in between can be guilty of stuff.

sokoloff 3y ago
“accomplice”, “collaborator” and “facilitator” are all singular nouns rather than collective nouns.
- Jcowell 3y ago
  Singular nouns can still refer to a group of people. there’s only one United States of America but there country refers to the people that live in it. “Italy was an accomplice to Nazi Germany during WW2”
throw10920 3y ago
> I believe countries, families and things in between can be guilty of stuff. Sure. When those things have internal organization and hierarchy and structures that lead to them making a consensus decision and acting as a whole, then yes, they can be "guilty" for some values of guilty. Where's the decision-making system for all white people?

blueboo 3y ago

Groups were advantaged over groups. Your line of reasoning itself draws a boundary--in history--and thereby quite conveniently sidesteps the issue. And yes, a pair of Ethiopian immigrants, even in 2023, face structural racism over and above their Ukrainian friends, alas, arising from America's legacy of slavery -- hence affrimative action.

lom888 3y ago
But perpetuating the logic of groups being advantaged over groups only keeps the identitarian mindset going. By openly favoring certain groups the discrimination never ends. All you need to do is look at India where the active discrimination in favor of scheduled castes goes on ad infinitum to see that the effect of any discrimination amplifies sectarianism. The line needs to be drawn somewhere. You don't fight fire with fire, you fight it with water. You don't solve discrimination with more discrimination, you fight it by having people not accept the logic of identitarianism.
- mcv 3y ago
  The discrimination doesn't go away if you ignore it. The discrimination has continued. It still is. Not forced by the law any more, but still many times perpetrated by individuals based on other individuals' membership or a perceived group. That is the real identitarian mindset you should be worried about.
  - pbhjpbhj 3y ago
    Discrimination goes away when you stop discriminating, perpetuating it doesn't stop it. It's like you're saying you hit me, hitting is wrong, so I'm going to hit you back ... and you think that will end hitting for good. Er, if it's wrong, stop doing it.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  > perpetuating the logic of groups being advantaged over groups only keeps the identitarian mindset going maybe, maybe not - the goal, however, is not to "not keep the 'identitarian' mindset going", it is to right past wrongs, make those wronged people whole, and only then ignore identity, as long as everyone else can do it too.

mcv 3y ago

I'm not talking about guilt, I'm talking about getting hurt. Black Americans were quite clearly discriminated against as a group. Your examples are all about punishment, I'm talking about lifting them up, correcting the wrongs, reimbursing the damage done. It's not about benefits they inherited, but obstacles they inherited, opportunities that were denied to them, unjust punishment that they received. This has been structural for a ridiculously long time, and it's still not gone. Black people still receive more severe punishment for the same crimes, are still often denied opportunities that are available to white people (months ago there was an article here about how black founders couldn't get funding if they didn't get a white co-founder who was then assumed by VCs to be the real CEO). Even if they are technically equal before the law, that still doesn't mean that they're treated as equal in practice.

notSupplied 3y ago
This SCOTUS case had heavy emphasis on the fact Affirmative Action as it is practiced at elite institutions today, has a net slightly negative effect on whites, and an extremely large negative effect on Asians applicants. It is in practice, a large transfer of elite diplomas from Asian to Black students. Black people have indeed suffered greatly historically. Yet an awkward question remains: Why are Asians paying the price?
MaokaiLin 3y ago
Surely black americans are hurt, and it's only fair to lift them up, but at what cost? In these cases the asian americans are getting hurt because of it. Why not help lift asian americans up as well? They are also discriminated over a century after all, and now they are paying the price for reparations? Why is that not a discrimination itself?
sokoloff 3y ago
> Your examples are all about punishment, I'm talking about lifting them up, correcting the wrongs, reimbursing the damage done. Lifting one group up is almost always at the expense of other groups, which is isomorphic to punishment. If you have a way to lift some up without any disadvantage to others, we should probably just do that to an infinite extent to everyone.

paiute 3y ago

> Groups of people don't have guilt or automatic responsibility, only individuals do. Humans are a eusocial species, and history is full of group guilt, plight, dominance. I do agree with the direction of your thought though. We should strive at the individual level.

Misdicorl 3y ago

"you can't simply draw a boundary... Https if people don't have responsibility... Only individuals do" I think this is specious reasoning. We accept this just fine in other tort circumstances e.g 1) lawsuits against a city after miscarriage of justice 2) lawsuits against corporations when X happens. Often individual responsibility will be a portion of the trial but to my understanding it is 1) a secondary or even tertiary concern 2) used to deflect blame from the group I think in general not allowing blame to be allocated to individuals will lead to poor results. We need methods to call systems bad and curtail them in addition to individuals

concordDance 3y ago
Those examples are legal entities with decision-making hierarchies and individuals with the power to exit the group and with limited liability. Racial groupings are not even natural categories (there are tons of ways to divide people up by ethnicity).
- Misdicorl 3y ago
  I think the relevant grouping to take to task for these issues is federal, state, and local governments (and probably quite a few corporations). Not "white people".
- krainboltgreene 3y ago
  > Racial groupings are not even natural categories (there are tons of ways to divide people up by ethnicity). No but class action lawsuits do give us two categories.

bandrami 3y ago

[flagged]

oceanplexian 3y ago
> It doesn't really have anything to do with "guilt", it has to do with the fact that white middle class intergenerational wealth. Can't you recognize that statements like this are propagating the same insensitivity you are intending to correct? My grandparents were white. They were Argentine and moved to Las Vegas in the 1950s to clean toilets in hotel rooms (And did so for 40 years) so they could raise a family in something resembling a middle class lifestyle. You can't throw a stone very far in the USA and not hear the same or a similar story, at least in my experience. Someone moved here starting with nothing, worked hard, and was able to dramatically increase their standing in life. Integenerational wealth is not common, in fact it is exceedingly rare.
- bandrami 3y ago
  [flagged]
- skulk 3y ago
  [flagged]
- HWR_14 3y ago
  If your grandparents achieved a middle-class life in 1950's America, they owned a home. That home is a form of intergenerational wealth. If they are still alive, your parents or you or another relative will likely get a windfall someday of probably six-figures. Which means that windfall will at the least double the average retirement savings of a median millennial or GenX person.
jefftk 3y ago
I'd like to see more redistribution, but lump sum payments to 18yos are not going to be spent thoughtfully.
- slt2021 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

zacharycohn 3y ago

As an analogy: 1. Life jackets are banned for anyone with brown hair. 2. A very large boat hits an iceberg and sinks. There are a lot of people in the water. None of the brown haired people are allowed life jackets. 3. There is a (for the sake of this silly analogy) rapid discussion, people realize this was probably not a good way to do things, and a new law is passed: people with brown hair are now allowed to wear life jackets! 4. No one gives life jackets to the brown haired people currently in the water. Just because an unjust law is changed does not mean the people who were previously injured by the law are magically no longer injured.

vacuity 3y ago
True, though it's still difficult to just give the brown haired people life jackets (and maybe some drowned already). Affirmative action seems as if the few brown haired people who are easily accessible are given life jackets, and "everyone" is happy. My ideas for reform — better public school infra in poorer communities, blah blah (I expound a bit elsewhere) — certainly would be more difficult but give many more brown haired people access to life jackets. Also, don't forget the other drowning people, even if there aren't so many of them compared to brown haired people.
concordDance 3y ago
The obvious answer to that seems to be to give everyone in the water without a life jacket a life jacket, regardless of their hair color.

Krollifi 3y ago

> Groups of people don't have guilt or automatic responsibility, only individuals do. Companies and governments can be found guilty of wrong doing. ChatGPT: Yes, both companies and governments can be found guilty of wrongdoing. The extent and process of holding them accountable can vary depending on the jurisdiction and the specific circumstances involved. Companies can face legal consequences for actions such as fraud, environmental violations, or antitrust violations, among others. Similarly, governments can be held accountable through legal means, such as investigations, impeachment, or legal proceedings, for acts that are deemed illegal or in violation of their responsibilities. The nature of the wrongdoing and the applicable laws and regulations determine the process and consequences of holding them accountable. Edit: Havard was ruled against as an organization. Of course organizations can be held responsible for what they do including the government.

semilattice 3y ago

> Groups of people don't have guilt or automatic responsibility, only individuals do. I think the question here is who is entitled to have the 'revenge' or the reparation or the 'affirmative action' People who were persecuted or opressed? or their offspring? For example German government agreed to pay reparation to Jews in (some?) Eastern European countries and Russia, that were alive at the time of WWII and lived on the territories that the Germany attacked. The reparation from what I know were 2,000 or 4,000 USD one time payment. -- So in that model a) the person receiving the reparation had to be alive at the time of the crime. b) had to be on the territory where the crime was committed c) I do not think the person needed to prove that they were directly affected by the crime from what I know the reparation was selective. It did not cover Gypsys, did not cover non-Jews -- I do not know what the right model is. Can a nation be responsible for the crimes their government has committed? For how long? If the answer to the above is 'yes' (that the nation is responsible) -- wouldn't that justify terrorism? wouldn't that justify blood-revenge practice? But that revenge can go for generations, and at some point will be reversed -- that means, in turn, endless wars. -- May be the correct answer is to limit the action of 'righting the wrongs' to the people who were the victims and alive at the time of the crime ? But that does not seem to be fair to the victims either

vacuity 3y ago
Life isn't fair. Yay, argument over! Not. Still, I think my as-of-yet unstated point stands. That is, the government should do everything in its power (reasonably speaking) to serve justice to the criminal and support the victim, but that just isn't possible for massive historical grievances. Where there are current issues affecting Jews or whoever else, they should be addressed. Of course, some issues can be resolved with money, while others are more insidious.

tynpeddler 3y ago

> Groups of people don't have guilt or automatic responsibility, only individuals do. This is not exactly correct. Governments are composed of groups of people and governments maintain continuity of responsibility even when all the people in that government are different. Black Americans were discriminated against as a matter of state and federal policy and thus both state and federal government is at fault for the treatment of Black American. There is clear precedent in American law that in such cases, harmed individuals and groups are due financial compensation. Precedent for financial compensation due to government abuse of power is an incredibly old precedent and the only reason Black Americans haven't been compensated for the discrimination they've suffered is because the continuation of racism, the tradition of discrimination and the sheer size of the problem have turned what should be a fairly straightforward legal case into a complicated political question.

smegger001 3y ago
When do we stop hold people responsible for the sins of their great great grandfathers? I don't hold a grudge against the British for press-ganging my great^9 grandfather into involuntary navel service. He was taken because he was Irish and near the waterfront at the wrong time. How was his kidnapping, forced labor, and whipping with a cat'o nine materially any different from other forms of slavery? When he escaped by jumping ship and running as far inland as he could he was risking beating whipping and execution if he was ever caught. Is that any different than runaway slaves? Should I get a pay off from the UK because they wronged my family taking my Great^9 grandfather away from his home family and job? They systematically oppressed the Irish for centuries too. His decedents have been mostly poor laborers only edging into middle class with my parents generation. I don't think I deserve anything that would be ridiculous. How about my sons they are 1/16 black on their mothers side even though they look to all appearances to be of blonde haired northern European stock. Do they get any special payments for their ancestors oppression? if not what percentage of your ancestors need to be of a single oppressed group to be owed restitution by the rest of taxpaying society. oh but its was my government shitting on other racial groups. but I didn't vote for them. I usually vote third party and those candidates never win despite having better policy. Yet I am to be held responsible for crimes my ancestors didn't commit (mostly because they were to poor or not emigrated to America yet) and for government policy put in place either before my time or by representatives i voted against. sure they suffered but why should i be penalized via taking more of my income I use to feed my family thus increasing their suffering for reparation to someone i haven't done anything to.

reilly3000 3y ago

[flagged]

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
erenyeager 3y ago
Thank you for speaking some sense in this thread. It is quite easy if You start to look into it, reparations is about justice. Injustice is perpetuated under the guise of “neutral” policy all the time.

gcanyon 3y ago

It's not about slavery; it's about what's going on in the U.S. right now. Study after study shows disadvantages to being black in America right now. Those disadvantages include, as you point out, echoed effects from discrimination and disadvantage from 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago, and further. But they also include immediate effects going on today -- like discrimination based on skin color or hairstyle or choice of name or an imbalanced school system or you name it. Affirmative action is a broad brush, as you say. But to demand that only people whose ancestors actually owned slaves be disadvantaged by affirmative action, and only those whose ancestors actually were slaves benefit from it, ignores the rest of the black experience in America, and is, frankly, offensive. As a bonus, I'll mention that every time I learn something about black history in America, I find a new way to be disappointed in my (our?) ancestors. The most recent thing I learned is that as recently as the '50s and '60s, since hospitals were segregated, blacks often had much worse access to healthcare. As a result, when they needed immediate treatment and no black doctor was available, they would go to a veterinarian for help. That's terrible, but the cherry on the shit sundae is that, if the veterinarian happened to be white, the care had to be rendered surreptitiously, because white people wouldn't take their pets to a vet who had served a black person.