6 ms·

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.
  - wakawaka28 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. What is more natural than people being taken care of by their parents, or defending their own resourced and interests? Even animals do this. Humans and other primates have done it since they've existed. Perhaps you have an alternative definition of "natural" that you'd like to share. I don't accept the premise that white people today benefit uniquely or unforgivably from centuries of codified discrimination. If anything, they are discriminated against and blamed for everything because of what similar looking people in the past did. Their successes throughout history and even in present day are routinely discounted as merely reaping the benefits of conquest, as if there were no positive cultural differences accounting for their relative success. The West has a uniquely innovative and egalitarian culture compared to the rest of the world. Minorities in basically every other part of the world experience more discrimination on average than our minorities do. >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. You literally just made that up lol. >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. Originality entered the conversation because I said that your argument was simple and unoriginal. You wrote it all out as if I'd have never heard or understood that before, when in fact I've heard it for my whole life and it's constantly reiterated in woke pop culture and politics. I'm not denying the existence of generational wealth or that some people may have accrued financial benefits due to racism. But guess what, people accrue financial benefits due to all kinds of legitimate and illegitimate actions. It is more important for people to not to be blamed for the actions of their families or distant ancestors than for people who feel envious of others over racial animus to be appeased (which I believe is not even possible, as some will keep claiming more and more regardless of any other considerations). If we start accepting that people or groups owe money based on what they look like, based on race relations of the past, you logically have to do that for ALL crimes. There are quite a few white victims of crime who would be owed restitution from families of minority criminals. I know I'm more or less repeating myself but you didn't even attempt to address my points like I did with yours. >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. If you've heard my exact objections to your arguments before and don't agree, I think it is you who is guilty of inferior reasoning (with all due respect). The whole "let's take from group 1 to give to group 2, because group 1 resembles the oppressors of yore" attitude is a symptom of first-order thinking if not malicious intent.

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.
- wakawaka28 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. What is more natural than people being taken care of by their parents, or defending their own resourced and interests? Even animals do this. Humans and other primates have done it since they've existed. Perhaps you have an alternative definition of "natural" that you'd like to share. I don't accept the premise that white people today benefit uniquely or unforgivably from centuries of codified discrimination. If anything, they are discriminated against and blamed for everything because of what similar looking people in the past did. Their successes throughout history and even in present day are routinely discounted as merely reaping the benefits of conquest, as if there were no positive cultural differences accounting for their relative success. The West has a uniquely innovative and egalitarian culture compared to the rest of the world. Minorities in basically every other part of the world experience more discrimination on average than our minorities do. >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. You literally just made that up lol. >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. Originality entered the conversation because I said that your argument was simple and unoriginal. You wrote it all out as if I'd have never heard or understood that before, when in fact I've heard it for my whole life and it's constantly reiterated in woke pop culture and politics. I'm not denying the existence of generational wealth or that some people may have accrued financial benefits due to racism. But guess what, people accrue financial benefits due to all kinds of legitimate and illegitimate actions. It is more important for people to not to be blamed for the actions of their families or distant ancestors than for people who feel envious of others over racial animus to be appeased (which I believe is not even possible, as some will keep claiming more and more regardless of any other considerations). If we start accepting that people or groups owe money based on what they look like, based on race relations of the past, you logically have to do that for ALL crimes. There are quite a few white victims of crime who would be owed restitution from families of minority criminals. I know I'm more or less repeating myself but you didn't even attempt to address my points like I did with yours. >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. If you've heard my exact objections to your arguments before and don't agree, I think it is you who is guilty of inferior reasoning (with all due respect). The whole "let's take from group 1 to give to group 2, because group 1 resembles the oppressors of yore" attitude is a symptom of first-order thinking if not malicious intent.