White Privilege

[Danoff]

Again I am not advocating monetary reparation.

I don't see the distinction between what you've mentioned and "monetary reparation".

I am only saying the dicussion should not be swept away, because it happened a few hundred years ago.

It should be swept away because the people who were enslaved are not around to be compensated.

If you keep saying that being poor is not generational, but a product of just "victimhood" in combination with racism, then why should there be any reparations henseforth at all?

I did say this in my previous post:

What you can inherit is genetics, genetics which others may use to discriminate against you during your life and cause you to be poor. But that is not inherited poverty, that is inherited characteristics which others use during your life as a reason to harm you unjustly.

If this is the fault of the US government, I could see an argument for reparations. For example, I could see an argument for reparations to people affected by Jim Crow, or other unjust laws, but those reparations need to be made to the victims.

 

[PocketZeven]

I don't see the distinction between what you've mentioned and "monetary reparation".



It should be swept away because the people who were enslaved are not around to be compensated.



I did say this in my previous post:



If this is the fault of the US government, I could see an argument for reparations. For example, I could see an argument for reparations to people affected by Jim Crow, or other unjust laws, but those reparations need to be made to the victims.

I guess you just dont want to see beyond monetary reparations for people that have been dead for hundreds of years. I just hope to at least be more open minded to hear all the propositions and not just that their dead and therefore arent entitled anymore.

 

[Famine]

However people don’t seem to complain for example for all the trips Trump is making to his golf resorts?

Now that is Whataboutism.

 

[PocketZeven]

Now that is Whataboutism.

Nope. I was not attempting to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocracy without directly refuting or disproving their argument. I was merely suggesting there are more wastefull things that the government spends on and accept. I was not accusing anyone of hypocracy.

edit: preceding what you quoted I stated that I dont know the answer. And then proceeded to list wastefull spending.

 

[Danoff]

I guess you just dont want to see beyond monetary reparations for people that have been dead for hundreds of years. I just hope to at least be more open minded to hear all the propositions and not just that their dead and therefore arent entitled anymore.

I heard it. I listened to it, I thought about it, and I decided it was nonsense. That's not closed minded, that's analytical.

I've explained to you in painstaking detail why it is a problem that the victims are dead. If you want to sweep that away without listening to it and considering it, well that's not analytical.

 

[Famine]

Nope

Yep. Someone asked you who exactly was going to pay for the tax breaks you're mooting, and you said you don't know but people don't seem to complain about Trump's golfing holidays. That's the definition of not having an argument for "A" but asking "what about" the completely unrelated "B" as if that in any way advances your position or refutes theirs.


The answer is, by the way, taxpayers.

 

[PocketZeven]

Yep. Someone asked you who exactly was going to pay for the tax breaks you're mooting, and you said you don't know but people don't seem to complain about Trump's golfing holidays. That's the definition of not having an argument for "A" but asking "what about" the completely unrelated "B" as if that in any way advances your position or refutes theirs.


The answer is, by the way, taxpayers.

Nope look up the definition. But to humour you I will correct the sentence to reflect the intention.

 

[Famine]

Nope look up the definition.

Oh man, you're trying to play that card again?

Whataboutism is a false moral equivalence fallacy - trying to draw a line from the a point being argued to a point of supposed equivalence in an attempt to avoid addressing the argument.

You tried to deflect from answering a question by asking "what about" an unrelated point. Trump's golf trips are unrelated to, and do not need considering in, the question of who is going to pay for tax breaks for reparations to supposed current victims of slavery in antiquity. They are not two points of equivalence.


I don't even know why you want to dodge the answer. It's "the taxpayers".

 

[PocketZeven]

Oh man, you're trying to play that card again?

You tried to deflect from answering a question by asking "what about" an unrelated point. That's literal whataboutism. Trump's golf trips are unrelated to, and do not need considering in, the question of who is going to pay for tax breaks for reparations to supposed current victims of slavery in antiquity.

You seem to like playing cards?

But nope, a whataboutism should deflect argument A with an accusation of hypocracy, but in hindsight I see why you would might think that way. I was not trying to accuse anyone of hypocracy, but mentioning that "people dont mind" perhaps suggests accusing bobK of hypocracy. (which I wasnt)

But like I said earlier, I edited the sentence to better reflect my intention.

I heard it. I listened to it, I thought about it, and I decided it was nonsense. That's not closed minded, that's analytical.

I've explained to you in painstaking detail why it is a problem that the victims are dead. If you want to sweep that away without listening to it and considering it, well that's not analytical.

That is why I keep discussing that it isnt about monetary inheritence. The concept of generational wealth from an socioeconomic standpoint was an argument against that monetary inheritence debt/asset are not always passed on and there fore descendant have no entitlement to them.

I was proposing alternative solutions that might reduce the wage gap. You seem to agree that racism against black americans is in direct relation to slavery. So you think the victims are not entitled to anything at all?

 

[Famine]

You seem to like playing cards?

But nope, a whataboutism should deflect argument A with an accusation of hypocracy

You mean like suggesting that people not complaining about Trump's golf trips also shouldn't complain about paying more tax for purported reparations? That kind of thing?

Incidentally, as you've quoted the Wikipedia article on Whataboutism, try reading down a bit to the part about false moral equivalence. You'll see that's exactly what you did. Or you'll play the "I'm not as good as you at English" card (or the "you're always looking at details" card - that's my favourite one) to avoid recognising this fact.


And you did it for no reason. The people paying for your tax breaks are taxpayers. It's an easy question to answer. Of course, the people you're wanting to pay reparations to are also taxpayers, which revisits a point @Danoff made a couple of pages ago about paying reparations to himself... so perhaps that's why you didn't want to answer and chose to deflect onto Trump instead.

 

[PocketZeven]

You mean like suggesting that people not complaining about Trump's golf trips also shouldn't complain about paying more tax for purported reparations? That kind of thing?

Incidentally, as you've quoted the Wikipedia article on Whataboutism, try reading down a bit to the part about false moral equivalence. You'll see that's exactly what you did. Or you'll play the "I'm not as good as you at English" card (or the "you're always looking at details" card - that's my favourite one) to avoid recognising this fact.


And you did it for no reason. The people paying for your tax breaks are taxpayers. It's an easy question to answer. Of course, the people you're wanting to pay reparations to are also taxpayers, which revisits a point @Danoff made a couple of pages ago about paying reparations to himself... so perhaps that's why you didn't want to answer and chose to deflect onto Trump instead.

I have not used that "card" or any other "card". You suggested it yourself.

I just pointed that out myself in my own post which you failed to quote!??!

but in hindsight I see why you would might think that way. I was not trying to accuse anyone of hypocracy, but mentioning that "people dont mind" perhaps suggests accusing bobK of hypocracy. (which I wasnt)

Congrats on making another thread unreadable just to have the last word and flexing your muscles. Like I said I corrected it to reflect my intetion. Now deal with it.

edit: added own quote

 

[ryzno]

The people paying for your tax breaks are taxpayers. It's an easy question to answer. Of course, the people you're wanting to pay reparations to are also taxpayers, which revisits a point @Danoff made a couple of pages ago about paying reparations to himself...

I think I started that when I asked who are they gonna tax. If they use general tax funds the black community isn't doing anything but taking money or land a giving it back to themselves.
Which pretty much got snorted at and ignored. I also recall asking him how we're going to go about figuring out who owes what to who, with others as myself have said we weren't here. I've talked about it here before, I'm first generation born in the South my grandmothers family on my father's side provided steel to the Union railroads.
I don't owe a thing!

 

[Danoff]

That is why I keep discussing that it isnt about monetary inheritence. The concept of generational wealth from an socioeconomic standpoint was an argument against that monetary inheritence debt/asset are not always passed on and there fore descendant have no entitlement to them.

I actually don't completely understand what you're saying here. If a child is born to an ex-slave, and that child is fed, clothed, educated and loved (presumably by the ex-slave), then the child has not been wronged, and is not owed anything further. Trying to pretend what that child's parents might have maybe could have done under different circumstances is not helpful.

I was proposing alternative solutions that might reduce the wage gap.

Yes I know. This is just (racist) inequality wealth redistribution, not actually anything to do with slavery.

You seem to agree that racism against black americans is in direct relation to slavery. So you think the victims are not entitled to anything at all?

Racism caused slavery (in the US). It existed beforehand, and continues to exist today (I know some racist people, so I have personal proof). The victims of slavery may well have been entitled to compensation if the US government was at fault. But the opportunity to compensate them has passed.

Victims of racism, on the otherhand, are entitled to racism reparations if and only if the US government is at fault for damages. Racist laws are something the US could atone for, the window on that is closing too.

 

[Famine]

I have not used that "card" or any other "card".

You do it all the time to get out of answering slightly difficult questions that don't fit in with your world view.

This one:

Congrats on making another thread unreadable just to have the last word and flexing your muscles.

is the "blame Famine for my own original choice of words" card. We've seen that one before as well. What "muscles" have I flexed, exactly?

You pulled a Whataboutism, after (wrongly) complaining about other people Whatabouting earlier in the thread. Then you tried to wriggle out of that with a definition card. Now you're trying to deflect the conversation onto me for calling you on it.


Perhaps you want to address the point at some juncture? Taxpayers will pay for your tax breaks to pay reparations to supposed current victims of slavery, including taxpayers who are supposed current victims of slavery - and given the USA's history with white slavery*, it'd be pretty much all taxpayers. So who's really paying who, and for what reason?


*Not that the USA is alone in that regard, but the topic appears to be currently on US victims of slavery.

 

[Rallywagon]

Its called the tu quoque logical fallacy, technically. You should look it up Pocket.

 

[PocketZeven]

I actually don't completely understand what you're saying here. If a child is born to an ex-slave, and that child is fed, clothed, educated and loved (presumably by the ex-slave), then the child has not been wronged, and is not owed anything further. Trying to pretend what that child's parents might have maybe could have done under different circumstances is not helpful.



Yes I know. This is just (racist) inequality wealth redistribution, not actually anything to do with slavery.



Racism caused slavery (in the US). It existed beforehand, and continues to exist today (I know some racist people, so I have personal proof). The victims of slavery may well have been entitled to compensation if the US government was at fault. But the opportunity to compensate them has passed.

Victims of racism, on the otherhand, are entitled to racism reparations if and only if the US government is at fault for damages. Racist laws are something the US could atone for, the window on that is closing too.

The premise is that, that child did not fullfill his potential then if his parents did have the 40 acres. As a result furture generations struggled with the same. This can be proven and isnt hypothetical. But I understand we wont agree on this concept.

I guess we, unexpectedly I admit, found common ground to actually further the discussion. What kind of reparation would you suggest for the jim crowe laws?

 

[ryzno]

What kind of reparation would you suggest for the jim crowe laws?

First we have to figure out WHO exactly suffered under Jim Crowe, HOW they suffered and WHO exactly owes them reparations.

 

[BobK]

If you want reparations for Jim Crow they should be paid for by the DNC, the direct successor of those who passed the Jim Crow laws.

 

[Danoff]

First we have to figure out WHO exactly suffered under Jim Crowe, HOW they suffered and WHO exactly owes them reparations.

Mostly the states that enacted them. It looks like the US supreme court enabled the continuation of them, and so there might be some liability there. It also looks like (hard to tell) that they ended around 1971. So nobody under the age of 48 has claim. Given that the kid needed to be school age (in some cases) to have been harmed, I could see an argument for age 54 being the youngest.

(For reference, life expectancy in the US is currently 78)

The premise is that, that child did not fullfill his potential then if his parents did have the 40 acres. As a result furture generations struggled with the same. This can be proven and isnt hypothetical. But I understand we wont agree on this concept.

I understand, but we do not know what those parents would have done. If the child was given the minimum, that's all we know for sure that the parents would have given (what was required). Beyond that is speculative noise.

I guess we, unexpectedly I admit, found common ground to actually further the discussion. What kind of reparation would you suggest for the jim crowe laws?

That's going to depend on the state, the law, and in some cases the individual claiming harm.

 

[PocketZeven]

You do it all the time to get out of answering slightly difficult questions that don't fit in with your world view.

This one:

is the "blame Famine for my own original choice of words" card. We've seen that one before as well. What "muscles" have I flexed, exactly?

You pulled a Whataboutism, after (wrongly) complaining about other people Whatabouting earlier in the thread. Then you tried to wriggle out of that with a definition card. Now you're trying to deflect the conversation onto me for calling you on it.


Perhaps you want to address the point at some juncture? Taxpayers will pay for your tax breaks to pay reparations to supposed current victims of slavery, including taxpayers who are supposed current victims of slavery - and given the USA's history with white slavery*, it'd be pretty much all taxpayers. So who's really paying who, and for what reason?


*Not that the USA is alone in that regard, but the topic appears to be currently on US victims of slavery.

I already pointed it out myself there is legitmacy in you accusation and then proceeded to edit the post you quoted to reflect my intention better. Just chill. Just let bygones be bygones.

You flexed your muscles multiple times already. Of which I cant speak, because you will again flex your muscles.

Read my edited post, because I actually did adress it and corrected it to relfect my intention towars BobK:

Well that is the right question. But i do Not know the answer. As i said before there should be a solution that would not cost the average taxpayer too much. There are enough ways to balance a budget to any situation.

First we have to figure out WHO exactly suffered under Jim Crowe, HOW they suffered and WHO exactly owes them reparations.

(WHO) I think all black people who lived during the time of these laws.
(HOW) They suffered, because they didnt have the same basic rights.
(WHO2) The government for enforcing these laws.

 

[Danoff]

(WHO) I think all black people who lived during the time of these laws.
(HOW) They suffered, because they didnt have the same basic rights.
(WHO2) The government for enforcing these laws.

I guess it's also worth pointing out that the distance to 1971 (plus 6 years for a first grader) is actually 56 years from the first possible date when a democrat could take the office of the presidency. If Trump is re-elected, we're looking at 60. I presume that states are not going to do this while Trump is president, but it's possible that California (for example) could do something on its own.

Like I said, the window is closing.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

What kind of reparation would you suggest for the jim crowe laws?

Do the civil rights and affirmative action laws not already reward and give special considerations to those that were affected by race?
Are there or were there not "employment quotas" placed on certain business enterprises that dictated how many of certain races had to be hired in the work force?
Have there not been low cost government small business loans available only to some races but not others to promote diversity in small businesses?

Have there not been certain considerations and grants available to some races that gave them opportunities in higher education that those same grants and considerations were not applied to other races equally?

We have been giving and offering opportunity not available to all races equally for 50 years but yet a large part of the population that have had these opportunities have not taken advantage of them.

It is time to treat all races the same and quit making skin color an excuse or a reason. WE have had a black President for Christ sake, we have black Congressmen and women, black mayors, black college professors, black doctors and nurses and black police chiefs in this country so saying that a black person does not have opportunity for success in this country is ******** plain and simple.

Anyone that wants success regardless of their color has that opportunity if they make the right choice. Smoking weed and being the hood's undocumented pharmacist is not going to get you there though! People regardless of race need to look in the mirror and they will see who is responsible for their failure or success, the day of the 'white man" is holding me down left a long time ago.

I am not rich and the majority of my friends are not rich but most of the people I know white privilege has been getting up when the alarm clock goes off every day and going to work to pay there bills. Also I have worked beside just about every race of people at one time or the other and none of them had privilege either but the color of their skin or their race did not make the work they did any different from the work I did, so where can I get me some of that white privilege people keep telling me I have?

 

[Famine]

Its called the tu quoque logical fallacy, technically. You should look it up Pocket.

It's a variation on "tu quoque" (you as well). That fallacy is more akin to the concept that if you claim something but your own actions aren't consistent with the claim, the claim is false - and that's kind of a derivative of the ad hominem (in which the questioner pursues actions not connected to the claim).

Whataboutism is more the drawing of a false moral equivalence whereby someone who claims something must also make the same claim of something purportedly equivalent or the claim is false.

A "tu quoque" would be a parent telling their adult child they shouldn't smoke because it will be awful for their health, and the child responding that it can't be because the parent smoked when they were their age. A whataboutism would be the child responding that the parent drinks and that's bad for their health as well. An ad hominem would be the child responding that the parent has been convicted of drink-driving so they're obviously not reliable.

I already pointed it out myself there is legitmacy in you accusation

You're just going to keep on digging, eh?

Just let bygones be bygones.

You flexed your muscles multiple times already. Of which I cant speak, because you will again flex your muscles.

Read these things back out loud to yourself back to back.

I called you on your fallacy. You denied it, defined it, blamed me, then said I'd come into the thread "just to have the last word and flex my muscles". I haven't flexed any muscles - I called you on your fallacy, your denial and the fact you were now blaming me for it. What muscles did I flex in that process? Is my mere existence in a thread a muscle flex now?

You're now bringing up your issues from months ago directly after saying "let bygones be bygones"

Edit:



Anyway, given the USA's history with white slavery, it wouldn't surprise me if near enough everyone was a descendant of a slave of one kind or other if you went back five or more generations (channelling Steve King there), and there'd be more people getting your reparations than not. So who's paying who?

 

[PocketZeven]

First we have to figure out WHO exactly suffered under Jim Crowe, HOW they suffered and WHO exactly owes them reparations.

Do the civil rights and affirmative action laws not already reward and give special considerations to those that were affected by race?
Are there or were there not "employment quotas" placed on certain business enterprises that dictated how many of certain races had to be hired in the work force?
Have there not been low cost government small business loans available only to some races but not others to promote diversity in small businesses?

Have there not been certain considerations and grants available to some races that gave them opportunities in higher education that those same grants and considerations were not applied to other races equally?

We have been giving and offering opportunity not available to all races equally for 50 years but yet a large part of the population that have had these opportunities have not taken advantage of them.

It is time to treat all races the same and quit making skin color an excuse or a reason. WE have had a black President for Christ sake, we have black Congressmen and women, black mayors, black college professors, black doctors and nurses and black police chiefs in this country so saying that a blacl person does not have opportunity for success in this country is ******** plain and simple.

Anyone that wants success regardless of their color has that opportunity if the make the right choice. Smoking weed and being the hood's undocumented pharmacist is not going to get you there though! People regardless of race need to look in the mirror and they will see who is responsible for their failure or success, the day of the 'white man" is holding me down left a long time ago.

I am not rich and the majority of my friends are not rich but most of the people I know white privilege is been getting up when the arlarm clock goes off every day and going to work to pay there bills. Also I have worked beside just about every race of people at one time or the other and none of them had privilege either but the color of their skin or their race made the work they did any different from the work I did so where can I get me some of that privilege people keep telling me I have?

Ignoring racism does not solve it. At least you are open for discussion. The problem is that these black people you are referring to are the exception to the rule. It is still harder to succeed as an african american then a white american. But I do believe that with every generation it will be better. In other words we will need to wait till those older generation racists like Trump, McConnel, Koch brothers etc. are not in this earth anymore and we can move past the history of racism and educate future generations on the mistakes of the past.

It's a variation on "tu quoque" (you as well). That fallacy is more akin to the concept that if you claim something but your own actions aren't consistent with the claim, the claim is false - and that's kind of a derivative of the ad hominem (in which the questioner pursues actions not connected to the claim).

Whataboutism is more the drawing of a false moral equivalence whereby someone who claims something must also make the same claim of something purportedly equivalent or the claim is false.

A "tu quoque" would be a parent telling their adult child they shouldn't smoke because it will be awful for their health, and the child responding that it can't be because the parent smoked when they were their age. A whataboutism would be the child responding that the parent drinks and that's bad for their health as well. An ad hominem would be the child responding that the parent has been convicted of drink-driving so they're obviously not reliable.



You're just going to keep on digging, eh?


Read these things back out loud to yourself back to back.

I called you on your fallacy. You denied it, defined it, blamed me, then said I'd come into the thread "just to have the last word and flex my muscles". I haven't flexed any muscles - I called you on your fallacy, your denial and the fact you were now blaming me for it. What muscles did I flex in that process? Is my mere existence in a thread a muscle flex now?

You're now bringing up your issues from months ago directly after saying "let bygones be bygones"



Anyway, given the USA's history with white slavery, it wouldn't surprise me if near enough everyone was a descendant of a slave of one kind or other if you went back five or more generations (channelling Steve King there), and there'd be more people getting your reparations than not. So who's paying who?

I did acknowledge and address the legitimacy of your accusation directly. You just seem to imagine reasons that I am looking for excuses, which I am not.

in hindsight I see why you would might think that way. I was not trying to accuse anyone of hypocracy, but mentioning that "people dont mind" perhaps suggests accusing bobK of hypocracy. (which I wasnt)

But like I said earlier, I edited the sentence to better reflect my intention.

 

[Danoff]

Do the civil rights and affirmative action laws not already reward and give special considerations to those that were affected by race?
Are there or were there not "employment quotas" placed on certain business enterprises that dictated how many of certain races had to be hired in the work force?
Have there not been low cost government small business loans available only to some races but not others to promote diversity in small businesses?

I'm not entirely sure what the extent of mandatory affirmative action is for various institutions, but my understanding of present affirmative action is that it exists to combat racism today, not racist laws. I don't think that affirmative action exists in response to Jim Crow laws of the past, but present day racism.

@PocketZeven

 

[VFOURMAX1]

I'm not entirely sure what the extent of mandatory affirmative action is for various institutions, but my understanding of present affirmative action is that it exists to combat racism today, not racist laws. I don't think that affirmative action exists in response to Jim Crow laws of the past, but present day racism.

As long as you allow race or skin color to be a determining factor to advantage or favoritism then Racism will always exist.

You want to eliminate racism then evaluate the person on their qualifications, accomplishments and abilities PERIOD!
Until that is done you will have racism in the equation. The more special programs and opportunities that are created based basically only on a persons race to be eligible the more you are doing harm and promoting continuing racism.

 

[PocketZeven]

I'm not entirely sure what the extent of mandatory affirmative action is for various institutions, but my understanding of present affirmative action is that it exists to combat racism today, not racist laws. I don't think that affirmative action exists in response to Jim Crow laws of the past, but present day racism.

@PocketZeven

After our conversation I have adjusted my views a bit. I came to the conclusion that although the discussion must be held, it is much better to spend the money and the effort on future generations. Which you essentially already suggested. All the slaves are dead now and cant be helped. All the current descendants can not receive reparations, without polarising the country. Most racism nowadays are still enorced by the older generations. I guess its focusing on educating future generations to make sure the wealth gap reduces.

 

[Exorcet]

After our conversation I have adjusted my views a bit. I came to the conclusion that although the discussion must be held, it is much better to spend the money and the effort on future generations. Which you essentially already suggested. All the slaves are dead now and cant be helped. All the current descendants can not receive reparations, without polarising the country. Most racism nowadays are still enorced by the older generations. I guess its focusing on educating future generations to make sure the wealth gap reduces.

I just want to say nothing is stopping you, or anyone in favor of reparations, from donating money to a cause that you support. It's not an all or nothing thing where everyone in a given population needs to contribute to a particular solution. What might be polarizing is telling people that they need to pay other people that they haven't even so much as interacted with, let alone harmed. Giving money (or other support) to people that you feel need it is less likely to generate a negative response.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Until that is done you will have racism in the equation. The more special programs and opportunities that are created based basically only on a persons race to be eligible the more you are doing harm and promoting continuing racism.

It's strange how positivity programmes often spur sudden calls for absolute equality.

 

[Rallywagon]

It's strange how positivity programmes often spur sudden calls for absolute equality.

Is it "positivity" when someone who is qualified loses out on a job or scholarship or seat to someone who is far less qualified simply because of the color of there skin? It is not more akin to fighting fire with fire rather than creating equality?