|
Berke Negri posted:OP, scroll up The Kingfish posted:It absolutely does not. Racism can function on a systemic level without belief in racial superiority. I think it's just a phenomenon and, if it's systemic (like privilege), is awful. stephenfry fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Jan 20, 2016 |
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:56 |
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:In my experience, trying to equate positive economic discrimination on racial terms as being equally morally bad as negative economic discrimination on racial terms is just a thing people do to shut down discussion on how it might be a good thing for society to positively economically discriminate for certain racial groups with measurable economic disadvantages. But couldn't someone just as easily say that the status quo is positive economic discrimination for whites, just not for blacks? What makes economic discrimination okay vs not okay?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:But couldn't someone just as easily say that the status quo is positive economic discrimination for whites, just not for blacks? What makes economic discrimination okay vs not okay? Why would they do that for any reason but rhetoric when we say "black lives matter" we do not mean "white lives don't" In my mind, what makes discrimination ok is the ends. Medical treatment discriminates because people with african genes genuinely require different heart drugs than others. Likewise economically if a black community is being quashed by generational effects. They deserve more funding. e: A Buttery Pastry posted:Generational effects aren't specific to black people though. stephenfry fucked around with this message at 23:48 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:But couldn't someone just as easily say that the status quo is positive economic discrimination for whites, just not for blacks? What makes economic discrimination okay vs not okay? Discrimination is ok when it is beneficial, and is not ok when it is harmful. I don't think we can say that the current status quo is beneficial for whites and not for blacks, because whites do not get any special treatment as the 'default' condition. Unless we want to make the fallacious argument that benefits to one group can only come at the expense of another, in which case I can see how white people may start thinking in terms of racial tribalism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Discrimination is ok when it is beneficial, and is not ok when it is harmful. I don't think we can say that the current status quo is beneficial for whites and not for blacks, because whites do not get any special treatment as the 'default' condition. Unless we want to make the fallacious argument that benefits to one group can only come at the expense of another, in which case I can see how white people may start thinking in terms of racial tribalism. Moreover, anyone who has trouble with people stuck in poverty suddenly having sustained disposable income from an economic standpoint is going to be a little uncomfortable in this subforum. Because that is what most kinds of reparations I see mooted do. Ideally, they create economic participants, customers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Discrimination is ok when it is beneficial, and is not ok when it is harmful. I don't think we can say that the current status quo is beneficial for whites and not for blacks, because whites do not get any special treatment as the 'default' condition. Unless we want to make the fallacious argument that benefits to one group can only come at the expense of another, in which case I can see how white people may start thinking in terms of racial tribalism. *rips bong* What if being black is the 'default' condition, and being white entitles me to harmless positive discrimination? *expels hit* e:*hacks up a lung* e2: Like, everyone's ancestors were black right? so it kinda is the default state of humanity ya know? The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
stephenfry posted:In my mind, what makes discrimination ok is the ends. Medical treatment discriminates because people with african genes genuinely require different heart drugs than others. Likewise economically if a black community is being quashed by generational effects. They deserve more funding.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Generational effects aren't specific to black people though. No, but black people were legally discriminated against by the government both state and federal wise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Discrimination is ok when it is beneficial, and is not ok when it is harmful. I don't think we can say that the current status quo is beneficial for whites and not for blacks, because whites do not get any special treatment as the 'default' condition. Unless we want to make the fallacious argument that benefits to one group can only come at the expense of another, in which case I can see how white people may start thinking in terms of racial tribalism. So segregation/slavery would be positive discrimination then? Whites clearly benefited at the expense of blacks in those circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:No, but black people were legally discriminated against by the government both state and federal wise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Hmm, reading it again, I might have read that in a slightly uncharitable way, reading the "generational effect" as being special to black people, rather than it simply being of a different character than generational effects among white people. Generational effects are extremely common in black communities, which have often been ignored and crushed by decades if not centuries of neglect and discrimination. I've said it before, but black generational poverty differs from other races on the whole. Other minority groups form communities around shared heritage and language that provide support networks and paths out of poverty. A Hispanic community may look poor, but, from my experience, they will have far better community organization and identity that gives them more resilience and opportunity than income alone might suggest. Poor white communities band together in blaming others, like, for instance, poor blacks for their troubles and don't face the same legal and enforcement hurdles black and minority communities face so white poverty tends to not be as deep as income would suggest either. Black communities though are just absolutely crushed by not only various kinds of discrimination, but a generational lack of social and education capital that means they often wouldn't have the internal means to rise up even if they had a legal framework and outside support to do so. Basically black generational poverty is the worst and its malignant in a way other races typically don't have experience with. For all that though being poor and Native is still worse than poor and black, so reparations for Natives first please.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:*rips bong* Just because you personally don't understand an idea doesn't mean that the idea is incomprehensible. Fojar38 posted:So segregation/slavery would be positive discrimination then? Whites clearly benefited at the expense of blacks in those circumstances. I've been asking if you (and others) think that positive discrimination towards one group must be paid by negative discrimination against another. You did not answer that question, but you did write this, so I'm going to assume that you do believe that social benefit is a zero sum game and that advantages to one group must come at the expense of disadvantages to another. Is this an unfair characterization of your argument? A Buttery Pastry posted:Hmm, reading it again, I might have read that in a slightly uncharitable way, reading the "generational effect" as being special to black people, rather than it simply being of a different character than generational effects among white people. The problem is that generational poverty among nonwhite americans was often because of 1) discriminatory government action 2) discriminatory private action permitted by government and 3) both of the previous conditions occurring because of nonwhite status. White generational poverty is both rare and based on geographic conditions, not something which follows you because of your group status. The deepest well of white generational poverty is concentrated in appalachia, and appalachian whites who moved away tended to break the poverty cycle. boner confessor fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:I've been asking if you (and others) think that positive discrimination towards one group must be paid by negative discrimination against another. You did not answer that question, but you did write this, so I'm going to assume that you do believe that social benefit is a zero sum game and that advantages to one group must come at the expense of disadvantages to another. Is this an unfair characterization of your argument? If you're going to take this argument I don't understand why you'd advocate for reparations specifically instead of a broad strengthening of the social safety net. Is that what you mean by "reparations?" Because I support that. If by "reparations" you mean "You get X because you're black, you get nothing because you aren't black" then I don't see how that ISN'T racist, based on historical oppression or not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:Even I can find something more practical than whatever horseshit TNC proposed: Kill all racists, no exceptions. Well that solves the problem of affording it at least. Once you've killed 99.9999...% of white people and the vast majority of people of color who have internalized white racism to some degree or another and unwittingly do its work, you'll have about six people left in the former United States to distribute reparations to.  On a serious note, I'm not sure if any sort of racial justice can exist with a country called the United States of America that exists within the 1959 50 state borders. Racism is so deeply ingrained that the very idea of "America" that I don't think the country can be "fixed" without a revolution that extends all the way to its very name and identity, or outright balkanization. The US is not a European nation state, it is a settler colonial state. Its mere existence is a continuing act of theft. Woolie Wool fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:Well that solves the problem of affording it at least. Once you've killed 99.9999...% of white people and the vast majority of people of color who have internalized white racism to some degree or another and unwittingly do its work, you'll have about six people left in the former United States to distribute reparations to. Your idea of justice necessitates dismantling the country? Is that part of dismantling the symbols of the old order or destroying the profits of slavery or something?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
I might not have a fancy political degree but I can't help but point out that trying to argue against the political impossibility of reparations while at the same time advocating for dismantling the most powerful state on Earth might be somewhat at cross purposes. I can't imagine why your average middle class American isn't interested in this proposal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
EasternBronze posted:I might not have a fancy political degree but I can't help but point out that trying to argue against the political impossibility of reparations while at the same time advocating for dismantling the most powerful state on Earth might be somewhat at cross purposes. Is there anyone in this thread that you think is doing this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
I really don't know what the gently caress (white) people should do about this, only that whatever it is, it will not get done. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
stephenfry posted:Is there anyone in this thread that you think is doing this? quote:On a serious note, I'm not sure if any sort of racial justice can exist with a country called the United States of America that exists within the 1959 50 state borders. Racism is so deeply ingrained that the very idea of "America" that I don't think the country can be "fixed" without a revolution that extends all the way to its very name and identity, or outright balkanization. The US is not a European nation state, it is a settler colonial state. Its mere existence is a continuing act of theft.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:I really don't know what the gently caress (white) people should do about this, only that whatever it is, it will not get done. Honestly? Give up on reparations as far too divisive, unrealistic, unachievable and perhaps even vindictive to ever come to pass and instead focus that energy into advocating for social reforms that would serve much the same purpose but could conceivably have a political future. Unless slamming your head against a wall and lamenting the unfair nature of the world instead of actually doing things is your thing I guess. The world does need some smart people with vision working on what seem to be intractable and impossible problems in order for someone to come up with a solution. I just generally feel its better to light a candle than to curse the darkness, even if the candle seems wholly inadequate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:I really don't know what the gently caress (white) people should do about this, only that whatever it is, it will not get done. The bare minimum is admitting that a significant part of black poverty is not in fact strictly a class struggle but the result of systemic racism and exclusion. It's real easy to say "racial inequality is something the man invented to keep our brothers down" but when you're a white socialist and that insight is all you bring to the table its not really enough.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
A set of gov programs without qualifiers would be a great start. A program that indiscriminate ly targets poverty would be more likely to target African Americans . Period. Fix the welfare system so it doesn't have qualifiers that target any sort of group, action , or condition. You will get a program that resembles reperations, because that's what it is, the wealthy pay for the right to be wealthy on the backs they 've crushed. That's the part that burns so many is the qualifiers. Got a social security number as a citizen, get mincome. Brand reperations as mincome. Start there, and burn the current rascist as gently caress welfare system to the ground.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
BlueBlazer posted:A set of gov programs without qualifiers would be a great start. A program that indiscriminate ly targets poverty would be more likely to target African Americans . Period. Based on these numbers, the Poverty rate of black people is ~27% while whites is ~12%. Whites are ~65% of the population, versus ~12% for blacks. That means that 7.8% of people are poor whites, versus 3.2% are poor blacks. So a program targeting just poor people would aid over twice as many whites as blacks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
I agree. We must continue to expand and annex new lands. Planet X is american god damnit
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Based on these numbers, the Poverty rate of black people is ~27% while whites is ~12%. Whites are ~65% of the population, versus ~12% for blacks. That means that 7.8% of people are poor whites, versus 3.2% are poor blacks. Thanks for the correction. I still stand by the policy descion of removing all current social program qualifiers as rascists in the system find ways to exclude others.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
BlueBlazer posted:A set of gov programs without qualifiers would be a great start. I would be super on board with this. So fun story time. I went to an elite liberal arts college and took a bunch of poverty and policy economics classes there because its my interest area. When one of my policy classes went over the mechanics of TANF and SNAP I had classmates - wealthy white and asian liberals who are supposedly the future of policy in America - no poo poo argue *against* more unrestricted cash transfers to the poor because they legitimately bought into the myth of pervasive welfare cheats and boozehounds. They were all in favor of tightly restricted budget categories and limited options out of smug paternalism over how dumb and prone to vice the poors were. As the only person in that class with any tangential experience with food stamps (my aunt was on them when I was a kid) I lambasted them. Sadly, no one stood and clapped and I just cemented my position as the weird old outsider. I do not consider the existence of some welfare cheats even worth considering in a larger framework. gently caress it. If you steal $10,000 in services a year you're still not even a rounding error in what corporations get as tax write off kickbacks. Blanket benefits to cover basic needs would be cool and good, although it would probably cause a poo poo ton of economic side effects (and would still greatly advantage white households, which are generally two adults, over black households).
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:The bare minimum is admitting that a significant part of black poverty is not in fact strictly a class struggle but the result of systemic racism and exclusion. What if battling racism is an aspect of class struggle?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:What if battling racism is an aspect of class struggle? I don't see how someone can battle racism when they're hesitant to admit it exists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
I disagree completely with the framing of this thread. A) Pretty much no goon will be able to properly design or critique a reparations program. It would take considerable patience, care, thought, and most importantly time. However, in the wealthiest country in the nation where 1% have 40%+ of the wealth, it can clearly be done. B) As citizens, the only important question in regards to reparations - like any political question - is the moraljustification. It is a question only of justice. Are reparations just? Considering the perpetual racism in America. The answer is clearly yes. The amount of wealth stolen or denied whether it was through slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination, or the New Jim Crow will likely never be returned, but it is the morally just position too attempt to fix the many ills brought to the community for the gain of the few. A answer of no denies the perpetual racism in America. I'd enjoy for someone to try to genuinely deal with the legacy and come a 'no'.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:I really don't know what the gently caress (white) people should do about this, only that whatever it is, it will not get done. Reparations = freebies for lazy black people. Besides, slavery no longer exists, so why are they still so upset? *goes back to watching Vine vids of cute animals doing silly things*
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
The best reparation is....love *insert violin crescendo*computer parts posted:Based on these numbers, the Poverty rate of black people is ~27% while whites is ~12%. Whites are ~65% of the population, versus ~12% for blacks. That means that 7.8% of people are poor whites, versus 3.2% are poor blacks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
As an observer without any special insight I would think that separate reparations programs for Africans and African Americans would be in order? If you wanted to really improve the lives and prospects of Africans, you would want to radically increase civilian foreign aid (currently at 0.19% of US GDP) while reforming programs implementing foreign aid to make produce demonstrable results -- i.e. remove political interference in where aid goes. I would think African Americans would do best if we spent a few trillion bucks on building social democracy, concentrating on inner cities and other areas where African Americans face the most hardship today. You don't have to rip down capitalism (yet!) but make health care, racial justice, representation in government, adequate jobs, and so on basic, guaranteed rights. Then spend what it takes to make that a reality. This would involve revamping and properly funding government institutions, including agencies like HUD which attempt to address poverty social problems but also those who make life dangerous for African Americans such as law enforcement. This would be bigger than Obamacare -- more like Iraq War level -- and could only be done with a huge liberal majority in office of course, especially if it were sold as reparations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
 they said nothing about the political impossibility of reparations one way or the other, and they advocated nothing, just implied they thought reparations would require dismantling the stateNNick posted:I disagree completely with the framing of this thread. personally I'm happy to make and hang around the thread because I want to see the interesting ideas. I have no illusions about getting good policy here. I can't agree on moral justification. If white people were the enslaved race for centuries with all the atrocities other races suffered but in a completely unlikely turnaround rebelled and suddenly colonised every other nation on earth sometime in the '40s such that we had systematic racism and similar socioeconomic circumstances as today, the best way forward from an economic standpoint would not be war reparations from non-whites to whites, even if the crimes were still fresh in all our minds. We'd still need a more equal, more fluid society. I posit that reparations or whatever you call them make good economic sense. Economic inequality is its own problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
stephenfry posted:I can't agree on moral justification. If white people were the enslaved race for centuries with all the atrocities other races suffered but in a completely unlikely turnaround rebelled and suddenly colonised every other nation on earth sometime in the '40s such that we had systematic racism and similar socioeconomic circumstances as today, the best way forward from an economic standpoint would not be war reparations from non-whites to whites, even if the crimes were still fresh in all our minds. We'd still need a more equal, more fluid society. Can you explain how this has anything to do with the current situation?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
Contrasting your own ideas/morals with hypothetical situations allows you to better discover whether they are in fact consistent/useful/fair/just. This is sometimes referred to as 'critical thinking'.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
rudatron posted:
If I give the bottom earning 10% of my workforce a pay raise, and the demographics of that bottom 10% are 80% male and 20% female, that wouldn't make it an affirmative action response even if that's where all the women are.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Contrasting your own ideas/morals with hypothetical situations allows you to better discover whether they are in fact consistent/useful/fair/just. This is sometimes referred to as 'critical thinking'. Right, except that hypothetical was so poorly constructed and not actually relevant to the current situation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
computer parts posted:If I give the bottom earning 10% of my workforce a pay raise, and the demographics of that bottom 10% are 80% male and 20% female, that wouldn't make it an affirmative action response even if that's where all the women are. edit: Now there may be other problems that have to be dealt with other than base level of subsistence. Opportunities to advance, treatment in courts, etc. And if I have some machines that can somehow solve each of those problems, those machine would be helping to solve the race problem in the country. "Ah", you may say "but you don't have those machines, and policies that target the poor are intentionally sabotaged", and you would be correct. But your base claim, that a policy that targets inequality proper is somehow mathematically unlikely to reduce racial inequality is embarrassingly stupid. The problem isn't with theory, it's with implementation. rudatron fucked around with this message at 06:45 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Except that it is, and I can prove it: increase the pay 'floor' so much that there are now no pay levels above it. 100% pay equality. Why? Because mathematically, the help provided is in disproportion to the actual demographics, because there's an already existing inequality here. I don't think people are talking about Full Communism when they talk reparations, but sure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:56 |
|
|
rudatron posted:The problem isn't with theory, it's with implementation. If you think people in this thread want to deal with implementation in any capacity you may be in the wrong place. Before you waste time discussing how to successfully target any social program to only the population of interest you need to define the population of interest. Good luck defining who counts as black for the purposes of an exclusionary social policy for poor people. People mainly seem to want to avoid engaging on details and implementation and talk about the moral dimensions and broad scale impossibilities of reparations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 07:06
|
|