4 ms·

>that people naturally have different starting circumstances The point is that it's not "natural". Many people's starting circumstances are the result of gener

>that people naturally have different starting circumstances The point is that it's not "natural". Many people's starting circumstances are the result of generations of systemic and codified discrimination, as well as ongoing biases and networks that persist today. This country had codified racism ~6x longer than not. There are 60 year-olds walking around today who were born under Jim Crow. Please stop and think about that for a moment. Analysis like yours is all too common and the problem with it is that it moves insidiously between the micro and macro. That is, you acknowledge that entire groups have been systematically disenfranchised, but you effectively discount the effect it had on any individual within those groups. On the other hand, your focus on efforts to address these historical problems is prioritized on individuals you feel may be negatively impacted. So, it's suddenly a personal versus group matter. Now, in this context, the broader group—including those who benefitted from the oppression—are essentially ignored. So, in your formulation, one group (and the individuals within it) are protected, even in spite of being on the wrong side of history. And the other group? Well, they just have to figure out how to reckon with their "starting circumstances". And, somehow, that's fair.

wakawaka28 2y ago
>The point is that it's not "natural". Many people's starting circumstances are the result of generations of systemic and codified discrimination, as well as ongoing biases and networks that persist today. This country had codified racism ~6x longer than not. There are 60 year-olds walking around today who were born under Jim Crow. Please stop and think about that for a moment. It is completely natural for benefits to accrue unequally to different people according to their behaviors and individual characteristics. This follows some kind of Pareto distribution. Roughly speaking, there are more poor white people than there are black people in total, and always have been up to now. I'm not suggesting that there is no racial discrimination against black people or that it doesn't matter in terms of outcomes, but I propose that as long as there is any measurable difference between groups one can rationalize and blame one group or another for taking from the other. The fact is that the US has less racial discrimination than just about any other place in the world. The collective West has done more for actual equality than any other part of the world. If not for the West, slavery might still be common. The only fair way to run society is for people to be free to pursue their own interests so long as they aren't actively infringing on the rights of others to do the same. That includes the right to take better care of your own family than some of your neighbors. >On the other hand, your focus on efforts to address these historical problems is prioritized on individuals you feel may be negatively impacted. So, it's suddenly a personal versus group matter. Now, in this context, the broader group—including those who benefitted from the oppression—are essentially ignored. What you're describing is a philosophy of envy. I'm not personally responsible for any "group" and I do what I can to uphold fairness in society. It is unfortunate that there is a ready excuse for minorities people who don't succeed in the form of narratives about historical injustices. A white poor person is just as deserving of assistance as a poor person of any other color. If you really want to judge people based on the sins of their "ancestors" or people who happened to look like them, then you must accept that children are responsible for the sins of their parents (and vice versa) because that relation is much more direct. I don't think our society would suffer such a scheme of guilt-shifting, envy, and revenge. >So, in your formulation, one group (and the individuals within it) are protected, even in spite of being on the wrong side of history. And the other group? Well, they just have to figure out how to reckon with their "starting circumstances". Here too you blame individuals for offenses they didn't commit to favor people who didn't suffer them. Forgiveness and charity are big in religion because even thousands of years ago some wise people recognized that nobody gets anywhere by holding a grudge. Treat people fairly and don't blame innocent people for shit they didn't do, or for benefitting from their families' hard work. If you do push such an agenda, it doesn't matter how good your intentions are. People who are being vilified and robbed will fight back.
- unclebucknasty 2y ago
  Your "summations" completely ignore what I've written. There's no reason for me to repeat myself. Re-read what I've already written if you care to understand.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    I read and understood what you wrote (not that it is original). I explained why I disagree. If you don't agree with my reasoning that's fine, but don't insult my intelligence by implying I don't understand such simple things. You need to think through the implications of trying to make innocent people pay for the crimes of people in the past whose only connection to the modern innocent "privileged" is a vaguely similar physical characteristic. We don't demand that from families of criminals who are alive today, unless the families have money that is directly linked to a crime. And nobody would tolerate punitive measures against the innocent like that even with a direct familial relationship. How much less should we consider compensating the non-oppressed for dubious victimhood links spanning many decades or even hundreds of years? There are valid reasons for these groups to be distinguished besides "systemic oppression" such as physical and cultural differences that affect behavior.
    - unclebucknasty 2y ago
      For instance, I commented that there was nothing "natural" about where some people start out in life, owed to centuries of codified discrimination, and you responded with the Pareto distribution. You can't do that kind of thing and complain about people dismissing you. You have to choose one. Those are the rules. I didn't make them. >not that it is original Not sure what you think the value of originality is here (versus, say, fact or reason), but this seems to be part of a pattern wherein you're distracted by irrelevant details. But, if it's originality you value, then I feel obliged to inform you that there's not a single original thought in the paragraphs you wrote. And, being wrong by way of poor reasoning doesn't make those unoriginal thoughts any more interesting.
      - 2y ago

wakawaka28 2y ago

>The point is that it's not "natural". Many people's starting circumstances are the result of generations of systemic and codified discrimination, as well as ongoing biases and networks that persist today. This country had codified racism ~6x longer than not. There are 60 year-olds walking around today who were born under Jim Crow. Please stop and think about that for a moment. It is completely natural for benefits to accrue unequally to different people according to their behaviors and individual characteristics. This follows some kind of Pareto distribution. Roughly speaking, there are more poor white people than there are black people in total, and always have been up to now. I'm not suggesting that there is no racial discrimination against black people or that it doesn't matter in terms of outcomes, but I propose that as long as there is any measurable difference between groups one can rationalize and blame one group or another for taking from the other. The fact is that the US has less racial discrimination than just about any other place in the world. The collective West has done more for actual equality than any other part of the world. If not for the West, slavery might still be common. The only fair way to run society is for people to be free to pursue their own interests so long as they aren't actively infringing on the rights of others to do the same. That includes the right to take better care of your own family than some of your neighbors. >On the other hand, your focus on efforts to address these historical problems is prioritized on individuals you feel may be negatively impacted. So, it's suddenly a personal versus group matter. Now, in this context, the broader group—including those who benefitted from the oppression—are essentially ignored. What you're describing is a philosophy of envy. I'm not personally responsible for any "group" and I do what I can to uphold fairness in society. It is unfortunate that there is a ready excuse for minorities people who don't succeed in the form of narratives about historical injustices. A white poor person is just as deserving of assistance as a poor person of any other color. If you really want to judge people based on the sins of their "ancestors" or people who happened to look like them, then you must accept that children are responsible for the sins of their parents (and vice versa) because that relation is much more direct. I don't think our society would suffer such a scheme of guilt-shifting, envy, and revenge. >So, in your formulation, one group (and the individuals within it) are protected, even in spite of being on the wrong side of history. And the other group? Well, they just have to figure out how to reckon with their "starting circumstances". Here too you blame individuals for offenses they didn't commit to favor people who didn't suffer them. Forgiveness and charity are big in religion because even thousands of years ago some wise people recognized that nobody gets anywhere by holding a grudge. Treat people fairly and don't blame innocent people for shit they didn't do, or for benefitting from their families' hard work. If you do push such an agenda, it doesn't matter how good your intentions are. People who are being vilified and robbed will fight back.

unclebucknasty 2y ago
Your "summations" completely ignore what I've written. There's no reason for me to repeat myself. Re-read what I've already written if you care to understand.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  I read and understood what you wrote (not that it is original). I explained why I disagree. If you don't agree with my reasoning that's fine, but don't insult my intelligence by implying I don't understand such simple things. You need to think through the implications of trying to make innocent people pay for the crimes of people in the past whose only connection to the modern innocent "privileged" is a vaguely similar physical characteristic. We don't demand that from families of criminals who are alive today, unless the families have money that is directly linked to a crime. And nobody would tolerate punitive measures against the innocent like that even with a direct familial relationship. How much less should we consider compensating the non-oppressed for dubious victimhood links spanning many decades or even hundreds of years? There are valid reasons for these groups to be distinguished besides "systemic oppression" such as physical and cultural differences that affect behavior.
  - unclebucknasty 2y ago
    For instance, I commented that there was nothing "natural" about where some people start out in life, owed to centuries of codified discrimination, and you responded with the Pareto distribution. You can't do that kind of thing and complain about people dismissing you. You have to choose one. Those are the rules. I didn't make them. >not that it is original Not sure what you think the value of originality is here (versus, say, fact or reason), but this seems to be part of a pattern wherein you're distracted by irrelevant details. But, if it's originality you value, then I feel obliged to inform you that there's not a single original thought in the paragraphs you wrote. And, being wrong by way of poor reasoning doesn't make those unoriginal thoughts any more interesting.
    - 2y ago