|
Spatula City posted:So, in theory I support the idea of reparations, but I think we need to call it something else, because "reparations" is a loaded term. Sell it, use marketing techniques and branding to make it into something palatable. Not that a lot of white people find giving money to black people palatable in general. But I'm optimistic that with the right campaign, it could be sold. Nothing short of even more inequality than the status quo is palatable to those who get upset at the idea of reparations.
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:46 |
|
|
StealthArcher posted:Invaluable insight that. Two Finger posted:Hahahahahahahaha oh man this is too much, you cannot be serious? See, now you've entirely misrepresented my stance. Maybe I didn't simplify enough for you- The government did dumb things, the banks did dumb things, and consumers did dumb things. The dumb things rested on the incorrect ideas that money should be cheap, that everyone should own a home, and that there would always be buyets for products everyone thought were dumb 10 years ago. You can't lay the entire blame on one group and you can't declare anyone that went along with it innocent. Innocents would be consumers that didn't overextend themselves, bankers that recommended against over investment into subprime packages, and government types that didn't push for low rates and higher home ownership. It isn't the fault of the poor, anymore than it is the fault of the rich. The blame lies on a set of individuals and not with groups. Home ownership isn't right for everyone and it isn't safe to assume that a home will be a good investment.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
The problem with saying the problem is rooted in class is it requires you to ignore the history if how who was in what class was determined (it was by race)
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
Coates' argument against class based programs is that they have been racially prejudiced in the past right? Wouldn't it be better to just push for racially equal class based welfare?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Can't we just eat the rich?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:That was inferior Russian communism that had been sabotaged by perfidious capitalist pig-dogs. LF thirdworldism brought about by heroic vanguard posters and glorious leader Lowtax will not have those flaws. Isn't glorious leader Lowtax a Dennis Miller style Republican?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Coates' argument against class based programs is that they have been racially prejudiced in the past right? Wouldn't it be better to just push for racially equal class based welfare? Oh no you've fooled us! We wanted to lift up black people but now you're going to lift up all poor people instead! *snaps fingers in frustration*
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Nothing short of even more inequality than the status quo is palatable to those who get upset at the idea of reparations. Calling anything "reparations" is an absolutely terrible idea.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Oh no you've fooled us! We wanted to lift up black people but now you're going to lift up all poor people instead! *snaps fingers in frustration* I don't get whatever point your making here
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Coates' argument against class based programs is that they have been racially prejudiced in the past right? Wouldn't it be better to just push for racially equal class based welfare? Given the way that it's worked out in the past, is there any reason to think *this time* we can do it right?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
I don't know how people can feel anything but a deep sense of shame at the actions of our country in the past and why they are so averse to feeling those feelings but here we are. I mean, chattel slavery isn't even the worst thing the US has done.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
zoux posted:I don't know how people can feel anything but a deep sense of shame at the actions of our country in the past and why they are so averse to feeling those feelings but here we are. I mean, chattel slavery isn't even the worst thing the US has done. It's very damaging to their sense of self-worth, which is rooted in the idea that they got what they did without any help. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
weird vanilla posted:Given the way that it's worked out in the past, is there any reason to think *this time* we can do it right? This may seem like an argument, but its actually not.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
Two Finger posted:Haha. You rule. What you've just said is this: 'to choose to be involved in an immoral act is to be complicit' And? that isn't an argument In the case of a person knowingly using stolen property, they are choosing to violate the true owner's property rights. In our situation, however, there is often no reason to assume that any given thing or bit of wealth is stolen, and of course stolen doesn't include non-coercive things.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
Amergin posted:At some point we'll finally have great awakenings and reckonings for every lovely thing done by people against other people and we'll be good to go. Marginalizing their experience to the point of a slippery slope argument is really all the proof I need that you're a real piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
greatn posted:Isn't glorious leader Lowtax a Dennis Miller style Republican? To the camps with you, comrade
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Apropos to the latest pronouncement from our lord and savior Ta-Nehisi Coates: I can't comment directly on the paper (because I can't find a place to download a copy of it that doesn't charge $12, and I'm not paying $12 to read a paper that's not even in my field. Then again, I wouldn't pay $12 to read a paper in my field), but I'd be curious to see how it compares to previous research. quote:The weight of evidence is also mounting against the notion that ingroup bias is a default feature of intergroup relations and that members of low-status groups typically use a wide repertoire of identity enhancement strategies. To take one example from the survey literature, Sniderman and Piazza (1993) found in a large, nationally representative sample that African American respondents generally accepted unfavorable stereotypes of their own group as lazy, irresponsible, and violent. Indeed, they endorsed these stereotypes even more strongly than European American respondents did. Experimental and field studies have since shown that members of disadvantaged groups often hold ambivalent, conflicted attitudes about their own group membership and surprisingly favorable attitudes toward members of more advantaged groups (e.g., Jost & Burgess, 2000; Jost, Pelham, & Carvallo, 2002). On the basis of these and other findings, Smith and Mackie (2002) concluded that intergroup attitudes are more complex and differentiated than the received view allows. Ingroup favoritism and outgroup derogation may be relatively common, but they are by no means the only reactions that people have to social groups, especially when status and power differences are involved.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Monetary reparations would be nice, but let's be honest: it will never happen. It is really disingenuous to limit the conversation to that and/or immediately jump to decrying TNC's article based on the assumption that TNC is saying "gimme money, whitey." Reparations could take the form of jobs programs, federal stimuluses for black communities, housing and loan programs, and educational initiatives. But all this would first require White America to realize and state that there is a White America and a Black America, and that the former only can exist by the exploitation of the latter. TNC is asking the country to come out and say "whites have continued to use blacks long after slavery, things are far from equal, and I no longer want to benefit from white privilege." He's pretty clear about that and I suspect the posters saying "but white suffering! But I did nothing! But but but!" Don't care about the issue, are terrified at the thought of confronting their complicity in one if history's biggest (and still ongoing) heists, and are actively seeking to not understand the issue to hide behind ignorance. Much of white America couldn't give to farts about the treatment of blacks; most of white America are loathe to take any steps towards addressing racial inequality. To even get the democrat base to say this/share the sentiment "let's put a significant amount of effort/time/money towards helping close the inequality gap" would be a tremendous step forward, and I think if we had a federal study on how the government might mete out reparations/how reparations might manifest could lead to engaging more liberals/leftists. MLKQUOTEMACHINE fucked around with this message at 18:27 on May 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Remember:absolem posted:It is not immoral...to use the unpleasant circumstances of others for personal gain.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Madmarker posted:Government is funded by the government taking my wages. Exactly backwards. Your wages are funded by the economic opportunity created by 400 years of economic development, a solid portion of which was done at the expense of African enslaved peoples and their descendants. As a technical note, the Federal Government as a sovereign issuer of currency is in no ways funded by tax collection, which exists to protect the value of currency already issued from inflation pressures and to encourage or discourage certain societal outcomes relative to the taxation baseline. Any funds issued by the Feds labeled "Reparations" need not be paid for by taxation, particularly in a demand deficient economy. One of the primary ironies about the continuing economic oppression of people of color generally, and of the descendants of enslaved peoples in particular, is that the US economy would benefit immensely by removing the continuing sources of their oppression so that societal resources that go towards ameliorating and managing the effects of extreme poverty and oppression (law enforcement, incarceration, welfare, education and health care costs, etc.) can be diverted to other more productive uses. In this sense Reparations right now would be "free" to society, by making use of a large pool of underused resources (each American has vastly underutilized potential, but demonstrably oppressed Americans have more underutilized potential as they are required to devote more of their gifts, talents, and effort towards surviving the system rather than excelling and contributing to a better society). quote:false edit-PLEASE note that I do not agree with this logic, or the worldview that would create it, but this is how people can feel like they, personally, would have to pay for reparations. Its because to a large portion of the country, taxation=theft. I agree here that the politics of Reparations are toxic. And the same forces that prevent effective Federal fiscal response to the recent financial crisis also have prevented effective reparations by other names. Effective reparations, in my view, are: 1. Ending mass incarceration. This is the largest single method of continuing oppression. I think that whatever other 3rd way garbage the Obama Admin subscribers to, they are pretty serious about getting at this one. I expect it to be a major issue in 2016. Clemency and sentencing changes are good tools here. 2. Creating economic opportunity. This will be delayed politically until it can be enacted for all Americans. But it cannot be too soon for this. Politically, we need class consciousness to replace race consciousness. Americans banding together by economic status has powerful social desegregation effects. 3. Fixing the mortgage system. Home ownership is economically neutral for the country and subjects us to property bubbles from time to time, but it is a very powerful economic benefit for the lower classes. If we enact powerful antidiscrimination rules into this industry we can do a lot of good. 4. Primary Education Reform. End the community funding of education by local real estate taxes, which is the number one tool of oppression of the lower classes through denial of resources. The Feds could end this problem tomorrow by blanketing the school districts with Federal billions that they didn't have to deathmatch each other for. Education funding should be based on need, and poor and oppressed students have greater needs. Not much to cheer about here, R's and D's both love "education reform" that emphasizes "choice" (read: defunding poor school districts) and "standards" (read: defunding poor school districts) and oh by the way they agree to gently caress all teachers forever. Maybe DeBlasio can get something started as he's the first nationally known D to buck this trend. 5. Higher Ed Financing reform. Already a big national issue with solid D support. I expect big stuff on this in 2016 and cheaper college helps the oppressed more. As to stuff about raising national consciousness, it's all true but I don't think things will ever go in that order. Oppressed people generally have to fight their way to equality ("fight" in the MLK sense AND the Malcolm X sense - equality movements need their dignified peacemakers to legitimize the movement and their militants to kick people in the rear end and provide contrast). First you get them to release you from bondage, then to stop beating and killing you, then to let you own something and raise your family, then to admire your elites, then to intermarry, then to live and work side by side, then to extend the ladders of opportunity. All the while your home-grown strivers are out there, earning moral legitimacy and pushing back against the continuing reactionaries who want to pull everybody right back down to 1859. None of this is right. It's wrong and unjust in every step. The only thing that's good about it is the possibility of progress.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
You start out in 1992 by saying, "Reparations, reparations, reparations." By 2016 you can't say "reparations" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like urban renewal, medicaid expansion and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about wealth redistribution, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks benefit more than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to fund this," is much more abstract than even the urban reneweal thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Reparations, reparations."
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:You start out in 1992 by saying, "Reparations, reparations, reparations." By 2016 you can't say "reparations" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like urban renewal, medicaid expansion and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about wealth redistribution, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks benefit more than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to fund this," is much more abstract than even the urban reneweal thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Reparations, reparations." Haha awesome.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
greatn posted:Ask the Russian Jewry how communism works out for ethnic minorities. Nothing that the USSR did was ever close to actual communism.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
absolem posted:In our situation, however, there is often no reason to assume that any given thing or bit of wealth is stolen, and of course stolen doesn't include non-coercive things. and of course stolen doesn't include non-coercive things. So when black people are denied jobs or an equal education and the benefits are lavished on white people, that's not a thing we should stop or correct, because it's non-coercive? I also love how white people suddenly realize coercion is wrong juuuuuuuust when we start talking about redistributing the wealth their families accumulated through coercion. Fine, let's do this the Libertarian way: come in with an army, confiscate the wealth of the country, distribute it how we please, ban white people from accessing the courts, then wait 80 years and it's all good again because no one alive was old enough to have participated in coercion and that's all in the past. But it's a shame that happened, we know better now. Ah noble Libertarian justice 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:08 on May 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
BUSH 2112 posted:Nothing that the USSR did was ever close to actual communism. That's the sad thing. They called themselves communists, but nothing was communal except poverty. The powerful were rich, everyone else was pushed into the dirt.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
Good Citizen posted:I'd say it depends on your level of knowledge about how you benefitted from those acts. If you know you benefitted from the marginalization of others then not taking some measures to help correct the problem is immoral. The stolen goods mention from before works much the same way. If you happen to figure out they're stolen then you have some obligation to right things. Those are two separate issues. 1) Using stolen goods is wrong because you are using them without the true owner's permission. 2) benefiting from marginalization et al is not wrong, as long as you aren't doing #1. In the case of finding out you've been doing #1 you are obligated to stop using the stolen goods. You are not obligated to do anything else, but you definitely should, in case the angry true owner comes after you for damages. JT Jag posted:Look at the regdate and consider the guy has 11 posts, all in the politics thread. He's probably a rereg of someone. Not a rereg, just new. This is just the one thread I've opened so far that I didn't feel the need to read in its entirety and that I have strong feelings about. Mayor Dave posted:Haha that's a load of stupid bullshit. In all cases it was the banks pushing the regulators (who were often bankers themselves) to make credit easier to obtain. Banks didn't want caution; in fact the entire synthetic derivative market is predicted on taking on more risk. I agree that there was a lot of bank-regulator nonsense going on, but you have to think about what banks (or businesses in general want). They want to make as much money as possible. Now, most of the time they realize that that is best accomplished by being cautious, which is why they have all those risk experts and such. However, in this case they managed to be convinced (by themselves and the regulators) that there would always be buyers for these packages, which is patently false. Banks would have been more cautious if they hadn't expected to be saved. The synthetic derivative market is predicated on risk in that all banking is, but putting huge numbers of contracts together in order to achieve some sort of average risk per package that then can obfuscate the scope of the package tends to allow for more risk. Another thing to remember is that most every bank that helped make this mess had people at it who knew this much subprime stuff was a bad idea and said so, just like there were consumers who realized that they couldn't actually afford things that were being sold. I understand that startlingly few of you know anything about economics and that you probably don't care to learn. Poor people did not cause the financial crisis. You can't go around saying X group is at fault for Y or people with A skin color should pay back people of B skin color for the wrongs done to them. We are individuals and are not guilty of the wrongs of people who look, talk, act, or spend like us.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
absolem posted:I understand that startlingly few of you know anything about economics and that you probably don't care to learn. Poor people did not cause the financial crisis. You can't go around saying X group is at fault for Y or people with A skin color should pay back people of B skin color for the wrongs done to them. We are individuals and are not guilty of the wrongs of people who look, talk, act, or spend like us. So are you denying the existence of a White Society, one which has actively colluded on levels ranging from the individual bashing in some black guy's head to the FHA redlining blacks out of equitable housing opportunities, that puts whites before everyone else?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
I'm fine with being personally made to pay reparations because my father's family owned slaves from 1680 to 1865; even though my family lost all their land in Reconstruction and was reduced to crushing poverty I still benefit from the wealth their slaves generated. Edit: you're still crushingly wrong about the role of subprime, and by outing yourself as an Austrian you've proven you have even less economic literacy than the average forums poster. Mayor Dave fucked around with this message at 18:18 on May 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
absolem posted:I understand that startlingly few of you know anything about economics and that you probably don't care to learn. Poor people did not cause the financial crisis. You can't go around saying X group is at fault for Y or people with A skin color should pay back people of B skin color for the wrongs done to them. We are individuals and are not guilty of the wrongs of people who look, talk, act, or spend like us. You will never convince D&D or this thread in particular that current white people are a single block that is, as a whole, guilty for the current state of black people, as a whole, and that the issue is as simple as that.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
Mayor Dave posted:I'm fine with being personally made to pay reparations because my father's family owned slaves from 1680 to 1865; even though my family lost all their land in Reconstruction and was reduced to crushing poverty I still benefit from the wealth their slaves generated. No one is advocating this. Except now I am as punishment for being a dickhead.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
anonumos posted:That's the sad thing. They called themselves communists, but nothing was communal except poverty. The powerful were rich, everyone else was pushed into the dirt. Its almost as if an industrially backwards, agricultural based nation is one of the worst places to develop communism or something 
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:So are you denying the existence of a White Society, one which has actively colluded on levels ranging from the individual bashing in some black guy's head to the FHA redlining blacks out of equitable housing opportunities, that puts whites before everyone else? Actively colluding seems like a strong term.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
absolem posted:See, now you've entirely misrepresented my stance. Maybe I didn't simplify enough for you- Again you start in with this horseshit? You are right insofar as you can say that no group is entirely blameless. The US shouldn't have kept interest rates so low, and some consumers probably should have been better off about their decisions. However, while you can't say anyone is blameless, this truth is in the middle bullshit seems to imply that blame is spread equally, which is just factually untrue. For starters, consumption was driven by the banks. Once the banks realized this was making them lots and lots of money they began to heavily push home ownership on consumers. Now the reason I blame the banks for this is that unlike your typical consumer, they are far more financially literate. If you are a gardener making 30,000 a year and the citibank comes to you, or sends you a piece of mail and says you can buy a $250,000 home, why wouldn't you take it? This is Citi, the largest bank in the country. If they are offering you a loan clearly you can pay it, because why would a billion dollar bank offer you a bad loan? Predatory lending was a huge aspect of the crisis, and even in instances where it was not the banks are more responsible simply by dint of being the ones with the knowledge to know that this was stupid. When banks started issuing NINJA (No Income, No Jobs or Assets) loans to anyone with a pulse (or even without) they became the driving factor of the market. At any point the bubble could have been slowed or popped early simply by acting in a responsible manner rather than a feeding frenzy. And of course you continue to gloss over the securitization chain which was ultimately the driving force responsible for the bubble and for its heinous impact on the world economy. Simply put the banks would never have inflated the home bubble to the extent that they did if they had been regulated in this aspect (which they vehemently opposed). The whole bubble was predicated on the fact that the banks could give a mortgage and then get it off their books within a few weeks instead of a few decades, and the only reason they were capable of doing so was the fraudulent process that gave us Collateralized Debt Obligations and Credit Default Swaps and the like. Talk about these and we might take you even vaguely seriously.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
greatn posted:Was it Spring Awakening? Cause literally the exact same thing happened in the class my wife teaches. A student raised a case that was obviously an instance of date rape (though he didn't think so) to try and make an objection. You probably wouldn't be surprised how much pushback the collective responsibility thesis gets from the men in the room, and how little it gets from the women once said men start presenting cases that lack consent and argue that it's okay or that the woman is partially to blame in these cases.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZR1CvSQntE
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Actively colluding seems like a strong term. So you didn't read that TNC article then. Walking? When Bengazi yet exists and there are people without jobs?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
zoux posted:Walking? When Bengazi yet exists and there are people without jobs? It's actually even better: he was walking over to the Department of the Interior to discuss federal land use.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
absolem posted:I understand that startlingly few of you know anything about economics and that you probably don't care to learn. Tell us more about the non-aggression principle.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
absolem posted:I agree that there was a lot of bank-regulator nonsense going on, but you have to think about what banks (or businesses in general want). They want to make as much money as possible. Now, most of the time they realize that that is best accomplished by being cautious, which is why they have all those risk experts and such. The compensation scheme bank executives set up for themselves incentivizes them to not give a gently caress about the long-term health of the company as long as the short term income from their huge long term risks allows them to justify paying themselves massive performance bonuses. Not to mention, the mortgage underwriters didn't care if the mortgages could be paid because they were bundling them into CDO's, getting their friends in the rating agencies to pronounce them AAA, and then selling toxic debt as bulletproof investment grade securities. Did you just fall off a turnip truck. absolem posted:We are individuals and are not guilty of the wrongs of people who look, talk, act, or spend like us. And yet somehow black people are vastly overrepresented in poverty, incarceration, and victimization. Hmmmm how could this be when we're all individuals? Gosh I don't know, some individuals just must be inferior to others 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:24 on May 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:46 |
|
|
computer parts posted:Actively colluding seems like a strong term. Seems like, but rather accurate if we can believe TNC's evidence.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 18:22
|
|