Reparations

[futureman 22415]

no reparations thread?

[tantric superman 4667]

No reparations.

No reparations thread.

[futureman 22415]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/city-council-asheville-north-carolina-unanimously-approves-reparation/story?id=71795059

Quote

Leaders in Asheville, North Carolina, have taken a historic step to repair centuries of racial prejudice by unanimously voting to provide reparations.

The Asheville City Council voted 7-0 on a resolution Tuesday night that formally apologized to its Black residents for the city's role in slavery, discriminatory housing practices, and other racist policies throughout its history.

The measure also calls for a plan to provide reparations to its Black residents in the form of investments in their community such as "increasing minority home ownership," "increasing minority business ownership and career opportunities," and "strategies to grow equity and generational wealth," according to the resolution.

Councilman Keith Young, who spearheaded the resolution, told ABC News in a statement that the council was looking "to embed systemic solutions.”

"This process begins and is perpetual, repeating this process over and over again," Young, who is Black, said in the statement. "There is no completion box to check off."

The resolution, which was signed by Mayor Esther Manheimer, calls for the creation of a Community Reparations Commission that will be made up of businesses, local groups and elected officials. The commission will issue detailed recommendations, with plans to implement the reparations in the short and long term.

"As far as the timeline goes, we will have some steps to report on within six months and every six months after that," Young said in a statement. "This work does not end and will be adaptive, no matter what governing body holds office or who runs our city."

Asheville has a population of 92,870, 83% of which is white, according to the U.S. Census. Minorities own roughly 9.7% of the town's 12,785 businesses, according to Census data.

The council's resolution also calls on the state and federal governments to come up with their own reparation policies.

"It's clear to me that federal reparations legislation would be the most impactful," Mayor Manheimer said in a statement. "However, this is a conversation that is happening among diverse groups of people in cities and towns throughout the United States and through our resolution the City of Asheville has joined in this conversation."

On Wednesday evening, Providence, Rhode Island, Mayor Jorge Elorza signed an executive order that would explore reparations for his city's Black and Indigenous residents.

The order will examine the history of slavery and genocide of Native Americans and go through a "reconciliation" process with its Black and Indigenous residents. The order will then explore a process for reparations that would "reverse the injuries resulting from the truth findings and advise what appropriate policies, programs, and projects."

"A lot of folks are going to jump straight to the reparations question," Elorza said. "How much? What form? For how long? Whose eligible? Those are all legitimate questions, but they're questions for another day."

america’s best and brightest hard at work. 

Edited July 19, 2020 by futureman

[elfenix 34172]

There's one somewhere around here

 

https://www.surlyhorns.com/board/index.php?/topic/9998-for-or-against-reparations/#entry1422736

 

 

[Catdaddyhorn 3444]

Looks like Dak’s #1 fan found another topic to post about.

[Catdaddyhorn 3444]

 

Here's a little treatise on the topic from longtime advocate Duke economics professor William Darity.

[Don Johnson 4745]

 

[Dahobbs 17449]

8 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

@Js1 is right, this topic should be moved to the Reparations thread.  

But I don't know how to respond there to a post here (moderator?), so I'll respond to Thomas J Henry, er I mean @Neonmoon here.

So assuming the dude with a broken back died in, let's say 1865, should we pay the great-great- grandchildren of the plaintiff?

I'm totally down with paying claims to any former slaves, but there probably aren't many still alive.

The fact is that despite systematic racism, the US is by far the best country for black people to obtain wealth.

Of the top 17 black billionaires, 10 are Americans, or in Rhianna's case because wealthy in America.

 

Helping you move this over here. You can use the multi quote function to add a quote to any other thread. 

Again, I want to go back and point out that cyclical poverty isn't just an outcome of systemic racism, but is actually a modality of it.  Remember, one of the more insidious aspects of systemic racism is that it doesn't require any particular actor be racist. So yes, giving money literally directly addresses a major aspect and contributing cause of systemic racism.  

[Neonmoon 38127]

Quote

 

@Js1 is right, this topic should be moved to the Reparations thread.  

But I don't know how to respond there to a post here (moderator?), so I'll respond to Thomas J Henry, er I mean @Neonmoon here.

So assuming the dude with a broken back died in, let's say 1865, should we pay the great-great- grandchildren of the plaintiff?

I'm totally down with paying claims to any former slaves, but there probably aren't many still alive.

The fact is that despite systematic racism, the US is by far the best country for black people to obtain wealth.

Of the top 17 black billionaires, 10 are Americans, or in Rhianna's case became wealthy in America.

 

@DixonHur

You are down with paying claims to former slaves, but you argue the debt shouldn't be paid because the debtor is deceased. 

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I presume there is a large mountain of case law where relatives and/or heirs of the deceased have been awarded based upon the previous errs of the wrongful party

If one could not face any consequences for past wrongs if the opposing party is dead, that pretty much incentivizes the wronged party to kill the opposing party to avoid consequences 

[SydneyCarton 47885]

Well, this should be fun. 

I made a post on the last thread, so I'l show up here for the conversation as well. 

[safe sex 11684]

If you didn't read it when it was first published, start here: The Case for Reparations

I don't have a subscription to the Atlantic anymore, but 12ft.io works for this link. It is worth your time.

ETA: fuck me it's almost the tenth anniversary of this

Edited February 9 by safe sex

[Neonmoon 38127]

I will address my opinion on why certain parties may not want to pay reparations. 

"I am not racist. I didn't do anything wrong. It's not my fault your ancestors were treated poorly two hundred years ago. It's not fair that I have to pay money out of my pocket for something I didn't do"

That's a very logical and simple reasoning that many people have expressed,

But it is a simplification, and it ignores many of the issues

First off, you are right. You didn't do anything wrong. However, you were born in the United States, and are a citizen in the United States. It is a fact that the US government not only encouraged but facilitated a system of owning human beings based on race. It is not your fault they did that, but as a current citizen, you must share in the benefits and the liabilities of the United States government, whether you believe the benefits or liabilities are right or wrong. The US government never paid any compensation to the wronged party. The famous 40 acres and a mule never happened. It sucks you might somehow indirectly participate in paying for a wrong you never committed. However, this happens all the fucking time. It wasn't your fault that the police officer broke into an apartment and killed and innocent person, but you have to pay for it. It wasn't your fault that illegal immigrants are crossing the border, but you have to pay for it. It wasn't your fault that veterans were exposed to agent orange or burn pits, but you have to pay for it. 

I could keep going naming all the stupid shit the US government has done that we collectively have to pay for that wasn't any our faults, but we will have to pay for it. If I were so inclined, I could bring up why reparations seems to attract more outrage and posts from people than the thousand other instances 

[SydneyCarton 47885]

1 minute ago, Neonmoon said:

I will address my opinion on why certain parties may not want to pay reparations. 

"I am not racist. I didn't do anything wrong. It's not my fault your ancestors were treated poorly two hundred years ago. It's not fair that I have to pay money out of my pocket for something I didn't do"

That's a very logical and simple reasoning that many people have expressed,

But it is a simplification, and it ignores many of the issues

First off, you are right. You didn't do anything wrong. However, you were born in the United States, and are a citizen in the United States. It is a fact that the US government not only encouraged but facilitated a system of owning human beings based on race. It is not your fault they did that, but as a current citizen, you must share in the benefits and the liabilities of the United States government, whether you believe the benefits or liabilities are right or wrong. The US government never paid any compensation to the wronged party. The famous 40 acres and a mule never happened. It sucks you might somehow indirectly participate in paying for a wrong you never committed. However, this happens all the fucking time. It wasn't your fault that the police officer broke into an apartment and killed and innocent person, but you have to pay for it. It wasn't your fault that illegal immigrants are crossing the border, but you have to pay for it. It wasn't your fault that veterans were exposed to agent orange or burn pits, but you have to pay for it. 

I could keep going naming all the stupid shit the US government has done that we collectively have to pay for that wasn't any our faults, but we will have to pay for it. If I were so inclined, I could bring up why reparations seems to attract more outrage and posts from people than the thousand other instances 

Great post. And we all know why reparations attract more outrage than other things. 
 

[DixonHur 11228]

32 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

You are down with paying claims to former slaves, but you argue the debt shouldn't be paid because the debtor is deceased. 

Not a lawyer either, although technically I work in the law department.  I would assume that if the former slave had been awarded a judgement that he was never able to collect, then yes, the heirs would have a claim to that money.  But that's not the case here.  

34 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I presume there is a large mountain of case law where relatives and/or heirs of the deceased have been awarded based upon the previous errs of the wrongful party

Perhaps, but I'd bet those were direct claims by heirs who have a real "property" claim, like the black family that recently reclaimed prime beachfront property in California.  But in my opinion that is a different situation.  What was done to them was illegal at the time it occurred.  Slavery, in some states, was legal, so it's more of a civil claim.  I doubt there are many, if any, civil claims awarded to heirs past the 1st generation...IE wrongful death suits, etc.

38 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

If one could not face any consequences for past wrongs if the opposing party is dead, that pretty much incentivizes the wronged party to kill the opposing party to avoid consequences 

Welcome to the world.  People have "stealing" land, enslaving people, and killing innocents since time immemorial.  Hell, no country on earth would exist without it.  But I can't think of another set of people who were ever compensated for it.  The closest I can think of is native tribes in North America getting sovereignty over tiny bits of land.  Most of which isn't even near their ancestral homeland.

[SydneyCarton 47885]

3 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Not a lawyer either, although technically I work in the law department.  I would assume that if the former slave had been awarded a judgement that he was never able to collect, then yes, the heirs would have a claim to that money.  But that's not the case here.  

Perhaps, but I'd bet those were direct claims by heirs who have a real "property" claim, like the black family that recently reclaimed prime beachfront property in California.  But in my opinion that is a different situation.  What was done to them was illegal at the time it occurred.  Slavery, in some states, was legal, so it's more of a civil claim.  I doubt there are many, if any, civil claims awarded to heirs past the 1st generation...IE wrongful death suits, etc.

Welcome to the world.  People have "stealing" land, enslaving people, and killing innocents since time immemorial.  Hell, no country on earth would exist without it.  But I can't think of another set of people who were ever compensated for it.  The closest I can think of is native tribes in North America getting sovereignty over tiny bits of land.  Most of which isn't even near their ancestral homeland.

I don't find "No one else has ever done the right thing before, therefore we shouldn't/don't have to either" to be a compelling argument. And while human history is horrible, brutal and tragic, is it not our responsibility to attempt to reverse that course, even though in many ways it's against our fundamental animal natures? Because to me, that's part of what evolution represents. 
 

[DixonHur 11228]

30 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

"I am not racist. I didn't do anything wrong. It's not my fault your ancestors were treated poorly two hundred years ago. It's not fair that I have to pay money out of my pocket for something I didn't do"

This is most definitely not my approach.  Mine is more historical in nature. 

I don't know why slavery in this instance requires reparations when it never has before.  IMO, it's most likely a combination of recency, written slave accounts, and photographic evidence of how many slaves were treated.  That tugs on the heart strings of many people, but I'm clearly not the sentimental type.  

I want to know how it fixes the overarching problem, what would be the consequences, and where do we draw the line?  Should Native Americans get reparations too?  Do we pay reparations to Latin America? Vietnam?  Middle East? Or anywhere else American has fucked over in the name of democracy and freedom?

[Dahobbs 17449]

10 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Not a lawyer either, although technically I work in the law department.  I would assume that if the former slave had been awarded a judgement that he was never able to collect, then yes, the heirs would have a claim to that money.  But that's not the case here.  

What's the difference between the former slave being awarded the judgment at the time and their heirs being awarded the judgment now? Legally speaking, there is nothing unique about that situation.

Quote

Perhaps, but I'd bet those were direct claims by heirs who have a real "property" claim, like the black family that recently reclaimed prime beachfront property in California.  But in my opinion that is a different situation. What was done to them was illegal at the time it occurred.  Slavery, in some states, was legal, so it's more of a civil claim.  I doubt there are many, if any, civil claims awarded to heirs past the 1st generation...IE wrongful death suits, etc.

No. Wrongful death claims are pursued by heirs or estate administrators. That can include spouses, parents, children, grand children, and other heirs depending upon the state. In addition to wrongful death, we also have the concept of survival rights of action. That is that causes of action you have don't die with you but can be pursued by the inheritors of your estate. So, if you're injured a car wreck and then die of an unrelated event, your estate/heirs can still pursue legal action related to the car wreck. 

Further, you're mixing up criminal and civil liability in a weird way. While civil liability can be predicated a criminal act, a criminal act isn't necessary. And, ultimately, reparations wouldn't be handled through our civil justice system anyway, but rather through tax policy, so I'm not sure why we're exploring this weird and irrelevant rabbit hole.

Quote

Welcome to the world.  People have "stealing" land, enslaving people, and killing innocents since time immemorial.  Hell, no country on earth would exist without it.  But I can't think of another set of people who were ever compensated for it.  The closest I can think of is native tribes in North America getting sovereignty over tiny bits of land.  Most of which isn't even near their ancestral homeland.

War reparations have been a thing for a very long time. I also don't find the argument that bad shit wasn't correct before so bad shit shouldn't be corrected now as terribly compelling. 

 

[Dahobbs 17449]

8 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I want to know how it fixes the overarching problem,

I've already addressed that. It literally fixes one of the modalities of systemic racism.

Quote

what would be the consequences, and where do we draw the line?  Should Native Americans get reparations too?  Do we pay reparations to Latin America? Vietnam?  Middle East? Or anywhere else American has fucked over in the name of democracy and freedom?

Why would there need to be any further consequences other than the correcting of a wrong? From a policy perspective, we could decide that slavery is unique and stop there. Or, we could decide that other forms of historical abuse and disenfranchisement cause current problems and deserve correct as well. I'm not sure why you think that is a bad thing. 

[Don Johnson 4745]

What's the appropriate amount?

[DixonHur 11228]

6 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I don't find "No one else has ever done the right thing before, therefore we shouldn't/don't have to either" to be a compelling argument. And while human history is horrible, brutal and tragic, is it not our responsibility to attempt to reverse that course, even though in many ways it's against our fundamental animal natures? Because to me, that's part of what evolution represents. 
 

The point is, I don't believe it's possible to change human nature.  We are an extremely violent species of apes.  And unfortunately, we are also very clever at find new ways to fuck with each other in the name of some made up criteria.  The technical term is schizogenesis, which is essentially the ability to find differences between ourselves, and then violently attack/subjugate the "other" for being different.

IMHO, I think a better way is to look toward the future by addressing the issues causing the wealth gap, and systemic racism.  A couple of examples would be:

1. Legalizing drugs and treating addiction as a health issue, not a criminal one
2. A complete overhaul of the criminal justice system
3. A "maximum wage" such as CEO's not being able to earn more than x-times the minimum FTE in the company.  And yes, I believe contractors should be classified as employees for this calculation, at a minimum. 

There are obviously other areas that need to be addressed, but I think these are the Big 3.  Will they ever happen?  I doubt it, but I think it's a better path than direct payments to decedents of slaves.

However, if you did want to go the payments route, I would suggest allotting $X to every slave listed on a registry in the US from the 1600's through 1865, and then giving a pro rata share to their decedents.   

[David Dennison 18661]

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

The point is, I don't believe it's possible to change human nature.  We are an extremely violent species of apes.  And unfortunately, we are also very clever at find new ways to fuck with each other in the name of some made up criteria.  The technical term is schizogenesis, which is essentially the ability to find differences between ourselves, and then violently attack/subjugate the "other" for being different.

IMHO, I think a better way is to look toward the future by addressing the issues causing the wealth gap, and systemic racism.  A couple of examples would be:

1. Legalizing drugs and treating addiction as a health issue, not a criminal one
2. A complete overhaul of the criminal justice system
3. A "maximum wage" such as CEO's not being able to earn more than x-times the minimum FTE in the company.  And yes, I believe contractors should be classified as employees for this calculation, at a minimum. 

There are obviously other areas that need to be addressed, but I think these are the Big 3.  Will they ever happen?  I doubt it, but I think it's a better path than direct payments to decedents of slaves.

However, if you did want to go the payments route, I would suggest allotting $X to every slave listed on a registry in the US from the 1600's through 1865, and then giving a pro rata share to their decedents.   

Why not do all of those things?

 

[Dahobbs 17449]

6 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

What's the appropriate amount?

I don't think there is necessarily an appropriate amount. I don't think there is a way to calculate that in a traditional compensatory way. I think it is a policy decision we make based upon the effect of various levels of payment. As a random number, I might start with a refundable tax credit of $10,000 per year for 10 years and then do an analysis of how that plays out. 

[DixonHur 11228]

8 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I also don't find the argument that bad shit wasn't correct before so bad shit shouldn't be corrected now as terribly compelling. 

Then we probably won't come to an agreement on the issue.  Lots of people have been aggrieved throughout history.  It's part and parcel to human existence.

I'm of the shit happens mentality.  I recognize that I was a lottery winner at birth.  I mean we lived in a trailer park, but I was born in the US, which gave me a huge leg up on the world at large.  I doubt my life would be the same had I been born in Ghana (listed because it's the poorest country I've visited), but them's the breaks.

As I said, not a sentimental type.  I deal with what is and try to improve it based on learnings from the past, but I don't think it's beneficial to try to right past wrongs.  They already happened.  The only thing we can do is try to make sure we leave the world better than we found it...which we're doing a pretty shit job of by the way.

[SydneyCarton 47885]

4 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

The point is, I don't believe it's possible to change human nature.  We are an extremely violent species of apes.  And unfortunately, we are also very clever at find new ways to fuck with each other in the name of some made up criteria.  The technical term is schizogenesis, which is essentially the ability to find differences between ourselves, and then violently attack/subjugate the "other" for being different.

IMHO, I think a better way is to look toward the future by addressing the issues causing the wealth gap, and systemic racism.  A couple of examples would be:

1. Legalizing drugs and treating addiction as a health issue, not a criminal one
2. A complete overhaul of the criminal justice system
3. A "maximum wage" such as CEO's not being able to earn more than x-times the minimum FTE in the company.  And yes, I believe contractors should be classified as employees for this calculation, at a minimum. 

There are obviously other areas that need to be addressed, but I think these are the Big 3.  Will they ever happen?  I doubt it, but I think it's a better path than direct payments to decedents of slaves.

However, if you did want to go the payments route, I would suggest allotting $X to every slave listed on a registry in the US from the 1600's through 1865, and then giving a pro rata share to their decedents.   

While I agree with your outlook of human beings as violent and complicated, I reject the notion that we can't evolve or change our nature. Our entire history illustrates otherwise, although it is painfully slow. And I find "that's the way we are" to be borderline nihilistic. Ok, then why don't we just go back to beating women and gays, removing their right to vote, and letting landowners decide anything. Rejecting one path of progress as "against nature" while ignoring all the significant changes we've made to get this far makes no sense to me.

I'm also against direct payments. But I like all of the things you posted, although I don't believe they're directly "reparations." That's just shit we should fucking do becuase it needs to be done, period. 

I'd like reparations to exist more in the form of tax credits, which has been posted, or credits for home purchases, or supersized bonosues for military service, etc. SOmething that isn't just "here's your check" that gets added onto our deficit or tax bill has a better chance of not being roundly rejected and further pissing off segments of society against one another, and the idea here is to address the entire issue of race relations, not just "paying things back." It needs to be "Making things right." And that will take generations. But that's ok too.  

[Brian Fantana 6668]

Remember when futureman was a good poster? Yeah, me neither.

[DixonHur 11228]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Why not do all of those things?

 

Because only the three listed address the root problem.

The other opens a pandora's box.

[hobbes2702 12847]

6 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

As I said, not a sentimental type.  I deal with what is and try to improve it based on learnings from the past, but I don't think it's beneficial to try to right past wrongs.  They already happened.  The only thing we can do is try to make sure we leave the world better than we found it...which we're doing a pretty shit job of by the way.

How is your stated goal achievable without working to right past wrongs?

[DixonHur 11228]

3 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

While I agree with your outlook of human beings as violent and complicated, I reject the notion that we can't evolve or change our nature. Our entire history illustrates otherwise, although it is painfully slow. And I find "that's the way we are" to be borderline nihilistic. Ok, then why don't we just go back to beating women and gays, removing their right to vote, and letting landowners decide anything. Rejecting one path of progress as "against nature" while ignoring all the significant changes we've made to get this far makes no sense to me.

I'm also against direct payments. But I like all of the things you posted, although I don't believe they're directly "reparations." That's just shit we should fucking do becuase it needs to be done, period. 

I'd like reparations to exist more in the form of tax credits, which has been posted, or credits for home purchases, or supersized bonosues for military service, etc. SOmething that isn't just "here's your check" that gets added onto our deficit or tax bill has a better chance of not being roundly rejected and further pissing off segments of society against one another, and the idea here is to address the entire issue of race relations, not just "paying things back." It needs to be "Making things right." And that will take generations. But that's ok too.  

I think we're in alignment more than not.

I didn't say progress can't be made, in fact I said quit the opposite.  The examples you cite are the exact types of progress that can be made.  But they are all pro-active in nature.  Reparations are retroactive.  To me that's the big difference.

[David Dennison 18661]

5 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Because only the three listed address the root problem.

The other opens a pandora's box.

We must take the feelings of white people into account.

[DixonHur 11228]

Just now, hobbes2702 said:

How is your stated goal achievable without working to right past wrongs?

Happy to answer, but not sure I understand the question.

As mentioned above, I believe in taking pro-active steps to address past wrongs.   I think the Civil Rights Act is a great example.  

[DixonHur 11228]

Just now, David Dennison said:

We must take the feelings of white people into account.

Man, you really are fixated on race.  You should get help, it's really not healthy.

[hobbes2702 12847]

2 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Happy to answer, but not sure I understand the question.

As mentioned above, I believe in taking pro-active steps to address past wrongs.   I think the Civil Rights Act is a great example.  

How is the civil rights act proactive and reparations reactive? They both take steps to address previous wrongs and correct them.

[Dahobbs 17449]

13 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Then we probably won't come to an agreement on the issue.  Lots of people have been aggrieved throughout history.  It's part and parcel to human existence.

I'm of the shit happens mentality.  I recognize that I was a lottery winner at birth.  I mean we lived in a trailer park, but I was born in the US, which gave me a huge leg up on the world at large.  I doubt my life would be the same had I been born in Ghana (listed because it's the poorest country I've visited), but them's the breaks.

As I said, not a sentimental type.  I deal with what is and try to improve it based on learnings from the past, but I don't think it's beneficial to try to right past wrongs.  They already happened.  The only thing we can do is try to make sure we leave the world better than we found it...which we're doing a pretty shit job of by the way.

The logical conclusion of your statement is that we should never provide any compensation to anyone harmed by another. I assume you don't actually believe that. At any rate, you'd be disqualified from jury service in any civil trial I'd be part of because you sound unable to follow the law. 

[DixonHur 11228]

5 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

How is the civil rights act proactive and reparations reactive? They both take steps to address previous wrongs and correct them.

Civil Rights Act didn't provide any retroactive relief.  It only addressed changes after it's enactment.

Edited February 9 by DixonHur

[DixonHur 11228]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

The logical conclusion of your statement is that we should never provide any compensation to anyone harmed by another. I assume you don't actually believe that. At any rate, you'd be disqualified from jury service in any civil trial I'd be part of because you sound unable to follow the law. 

What law are you citing that would apply to reparations?  Not a lawyer, so curious to read it.

[David Dennison 18661]

3 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Man, you really are fixated on race.  You should get help, it's really not healthy.

You oppose reparations in the form of monetary compensation because you worry that it will cause resentment among white folks and I'm the one fixated on race?

OK.

[DixonHur 11228]

Just now, David Dennison said:

You oppose reparations in the form of monetary compensation because you worry that it will cause resentment among white folks and I'm the one fixated on race?

OK.

holy shit, where did I say that?

[hobbes2702 12847]

5 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Civil Rights Act didn't provide any retroactive relief.  It only addressed changes after it's enactment.

I guess I don’t really follow how that’s different or why that distinction even matters.

It corrected the many historical problems with rights. Reparations correct historical problems with slavery. 

[Dahobbs 17449]

3 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

What law are you citing that would apply to reparations?  Not a lawyer, so curious to read it.

You said that bad shit happens and will continue to happen, therefore no need to compensate for bad shit. That reasoning applies the same to a car wreck as it does to reparations. Again, the logical conclusion to your reasoning is that we should never compensate anyone for any harm. I assume you don't believe that and just are not articulating your beliefs very well. It may also be that your belief is not rational but rather emotional. 

[Incredulity 11555]

32 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

What's the appropriate amount?

The answer to this is always, more.

[DixonHur 11228]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

You said that bad shit happens and will continue to happen, therefore no need to compensate for bad shit. That reasoning applies the same to a car wreck as it does to reparations. Again, the logical conclusion to your reasoning is that we should never compensate anyone for any harm. I assume you don't believe that and just are not articulating your beliefs very well. It may also be that your belief is not rational but rather emotional. 

That's sounds like a huge leap in logic to me, but ok.

In the car wreck scenario, I would assume, again not a lawyer, that one would need to prove direct cause and effect.  IE that person ran into me and now I have a broken back, for example.  IMO, you can't prove a direct link between slavery and harm to a current living relative of a former slave.

[achooloco 1065]

As a Mexican American, fuck you pay me. If I’m getting paid, I’ll consider being for it. If I’m not, I’m not paying a dime. 
 

edit: or I should say I’m not for paying a dime. In the end what I think won’t matter anyway 

Edited February 9 by achooloco

[DixonHur 11228]

4 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

I guess I don’t really follow how that’s different or why that distinction even matters.

It corrected the many historical problems with rights. Reparations correct historical problems with slavery. 

I guess the disconnect is that I don't see how reparations corrects slavery.

[hobbes2702 12847]

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

I guess the disconnect is that I don't see how reparations corrects slavery.

You don’t see how money helps people who’ve had generational poverty due largely to slavery and us race policy? Really?

[DixonHur 11228]

Just now, achooloco said:

As a Mexican American, fuck you pay me. If I’m getting paid, I’ll consider being for it. If I’m not, I’m not paying a dime. 

See @David Dennison this is the Pandora's box I'm referring to...it has NOTHING to do with race.  It's about providing precedent that any group with a perceived historical grievance against the US, in this case, would be able to seek monetary compensation.  I think that's a bad precedent to set.

[David Dennison 18661]

7 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

holy shit, where did I say that?

I must have inferred it from:

24 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Because only the three listed address the root problem.

The other opens a pandora's box.

What's the pandora's box?

[Dahobbs 17449]

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

That's sounds like a huge leap in logic to me, but ok.

In the car wreck scenario, I would assume, again not a lawyer, that one would need to prove direct cause and effect.  IE that person ran into me and now I have a broken back, for example.  IMO, you can't prove a direct link between slavery and harm to a current living relative of a former slave.

It isn't my leap in logic. You provided the reasoning:

1. Bad shit happened before

2. Bad shit will continue to happen

Ergo Pointless to compensate for bad shit happening before

It sounds like that isn't your actual reasoning despite your statements. Your next post suggests that in fact you think bad shit should be compensated if it can be proven to directly cause a harm. And it sounds like your issue with reparations is that you believe that slavery can't be proven to have directly caused current harm. Is that correct?

[David Dennison 18661]

Just now, DixonHur said:

See @David Dennison this is the Pandora's box I'm referring to...it has NOTHING to do with race.  It's about providing precedent that any group with a perceived historical grievance against the US, in this case, would be able to seek monetary compensation.  I think that's a bad precedent to set.

I have no problem whatsoever with any group with a historical grievance against the U.S. making their case.

[Brian Fantana 6668]

7 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

The answer to this is always, more.

Clown ass little piss baby

[Incredulity 11555]

1 minute ago, Brian Fantana said:

Clown ass little piss baby

that what your mother refers to you as?