blowfish posted:

Who What Now posted:

Yes, actually. Show me your work, not just unfounded assertions. You'll be the first, but I'll wait, don't worry.

drilldo squirt posted:

A lot of trolls in this thread are racist as hell and it's cool to see them playing this dogwistle game where we both know what they are saying but never admit to it because they are way to weakminded to own their beliefs when people disagree with them.

steinrokkan posted:

Well, reparations for miscarriages of justice make full sense, but that!s effectively a matter of whether there's a functional and equitable judicial system, isn't it. I don't think abstract forms of racial injustice that never were technically illegal can be really addressed through something that would be distinguishable from a general good policy.

blowfish posted:

You're being paranoid as hell. Not every disagreement in the world boils down to the platonic ideal of "you're racist".

steinrokkan posted:

Well, reparations for miscarriages of justice make full sense, but that!s effectively a matter of whether there's a functional and equitable judicial system in general, isn't it. I don't think abstract forms of racial injustice that never were technically illegal can be really addressed through something other than basic good policy making, though.

drilldo squirt posted:

Affirmative action?

drilldo squirt posted:

I'm referring to a specific group of people that include you. Because you are racist.

blowfish posted:

[citation needed]. Because you're an idiot who reduces every problem in the world to one cause.

steinrokkan posted:

I mean, there's always place for reconciliatory procedures (like the many truth commissions that popped up in the past decades), but those are by definition focused on forfeiting the victim's demands for material and retributive punishment of the perpetrator, and instead promote positive change in the future.


Fair enough - but is that a reparation? Affirmative action can be quite blind to the historical causes of disadvantage among the groups it targets.

Main Paineframe posted:

If we can't even scrape together the political will to acknowledge the past wrongs, there's no way we could implement a program that even treats those groups equally, let alone one that gives them an advantage to compensate for the disadvantages they've suffered for so many decades. Look at the differences between "affirmative action" and "welfare" as implemented by society.

drilldo squirt posted:

Citation: your posts in this and the euro thread

blowfish posted:

You have to do better than this.

drilldo squirt posted:

It's easier than quoting all your posts.

blowfish posted:

I suppose just pointing out you're here to take cheap shots and call other people racists emphasise how you are totally less racist than other people is also faster than quoting all your posts.

Who What Now posted:

I can't help but notice you aren't arguing you aren't racist, only than other people are secretly as racist as you.

HMMMMMM....

blowfish posted:

cheap shots

blowfish posted:

Who What Now posted:

I had no idea calling the sky blue was a cheap shot. What else is a cheap shot to you? Is insinuating mutism are people also a cheap shot in your eyes?

steinrokkan posted:

Well, reparations for miscarriages of justice make full sense, but that!s effectively a matter of whether there's a functional and equitable judicial system in general, isn't it. I don't think abstract forms of racial injustice that never were technically illegal can be really addressed through something other than basic good policy making, though.

snyprmag posted:

A lack of a "functional and equitable judicial system" from this country's founding till today is exactly why we need reparations. The forms of racial injustice were non-abstract and legal until the civil rights act, and didn't magically all go away afterwards.

blowfish posted:

I wasn't aware mute people aren't people.

snyprmag posted:

A lack of a "functional and equitable judicial system" from this country's founding till today is exactly why we need reparations. The forms of racial injustice were non-abstract and legal until the civil rights act, and didn't magically all go away afterwards.

Who What Now posted:

Well I'm not surprised you would feel that way.

steinrokkan posted:

Yes, and my point is that the instruments of anything that would end up labeled as "reparations" are exactly the same things a decent government would implement regardless of their intent vis a vis historical reparations simply because they make sense, objectively.

blowfish posted:

All you have done in this thread is accusing people of being racist without even bothering to explain why they're racist.

blowfish posted:

...which is, again, actually fixing problems that never got fixed and therefore still exist. In fact, since "reparations" (in non idiot speak) means restitution for past wrongs, reparations imply that no wrong is currently being committed.

steinrokkan posted:

Yes, and my point is that the instruments of anything that would end up labeled as "reparations" are exactly the same things a decent government would implement regardless of their intent vis a vis historical reparations simply because they make sense.
E: The significance of this is, I think, that adding the reparations rhetoric to policy making discourse makes progressive agenda a tougher sell than it already is without bringing in additional benefit.

Mel Mudkiper posted:

The problem is that racist institutions rarely do things just because they make sense because of lingering racial biases and the racial component has to be exposed for any progress to be made

Welfare and food stamps are simply good ideas for all poor people but in the United States they are explicitly attacked for racist reasons.

blowfish posted:

I have yet to see you engage a single argument against reparations in the newspeak garbled sense of the term seriously.

steinrokkan posted:

Yes, and my point is that the instruments of anything that would end up labeled as "reparations" are exactly the same things a decent government would implement regardless of their intent vis a vis historical reparations simply because they make sense.

snyprmag posted:

So we should give the victims of institutional racism money and admit wrong doing?

quote:

Also what do you mean by idiot speak?

Who What Now posted:

I'll engage seriously with one when I see one that's logically valid. You're free to put one forward if you have one, but until then I'm going to just mock racism for being racist.

Mel Mudkiper posted:

-Saudi Barbaria

quote:

-Ethnic scholar

quote:

-Whatshisname

quote:

-Immigrants refuse to integrate

blowfish posted:

Are these victims still alive? Then yeah? In the sense that they can sue for damages, maybe with the help of some legal fund for the disadvantaged?

blowfish posted:

if it is happening then it is a factual thing and not a racism

Who What Now posted:

So only the rich or those some fund deem worthy can have justice, in your eyes? Seems about right?

Who What Now posted:

Hooooooly poo poo. This is literally the same thinking behind "if blacks commit the majority of the crimes maybe all blacks should be jailed".

But please, tell us more about how you totally aren't a racist piece of poo poo.

blowfish posted:

The solution to that is to educate the population about historical and current racism, not relabelling that policy as reparations.

blowfish posted:

It is a real problem that needs to be solved.

Who What Now posted:

Blacks a problem that needs to be solved? Seriously?

blowfish posted:

Tellingly, you immediately jump to the conclusion that all blacks are a problem to be solved,

Stinky_Pete posted:

heh, not if certain states have their way

steinrokkan posted:

What moral imperative for practical action is easier to demonstrate to the greatest number of people:

1) The need to uplift as many people as possible out of poverty due to basic philosophical principles such as the idea of seeing politics as a tool for safeguarding the growth of individual human potential, and that a society where everybody is first and foremost concerned about the well being of others is the most prosperous society possible.
2) The need to uplift people out of poverty due to the fact my great-grandpa was maybe complicit in robbing their great-grandpa.

And if even 1 is impossible in practice, what does that say about 2?

Infinite Karma posted:

Yes, he did benefit, but both his benefit, and his responsibility for those actions are far, far less than United Fruit's, for your example. And over time, those extra resources have compounded from small benefits, into large ones, partly due to the intrinsic value of the looted wealth growing, and partly due to the added value of our ancestors' labor over time.

But you didn't answer the important question: is our responsibility (in the modern day) greater than our guilty-by-association ancestors, because our total prosperity has increased? Or is it less, because the guilt has been diluted by everyone in modernity owning smaller and smaller portions of the original tainted wealth? Even if we aren't trying to assign individual (in terms of my inherited benefit versus your inherited benefit) blame, we still need to decide on how much we collectively owe, and to whom, or reparations really are identical to helping the poor people.

Giggle Goose posted:

I think it strange that you seem to think that getting an electorate just about anywhere in the world to acknowledge collective guilt for crimes committed hundreds of years previous would somehow be easier than implementing guilt-free social programs meant to aid the needy.