• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Reparations bill wins new momentum in Congress

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Ken g6 said:
When I first opened this thread I was trying to guess who the reparations were to be for. My first guess was Native Americans. My second guess was WWII Japanese internees. Slaves was my third guess.

There's a lot of people who theoretically deserve reparations. I don't think we can afford to pay them all.
Click to expand...

Au contraire, we could afford to pay everyone.
 
UNCjigga said:
I'd still rather they pander to people like me vs. billionaires. Is that so bad? If they're just pandering and not delivering on promises, then it's my job to hold them accountable.

If anything good is to come out of the Trump presidency, it's that politicians should be emboldened to say what they really think and propose policies they actually believe in. Messaging should come from the heart, not a marketing firm and focus groups.
Click to expand...

Yes, if it's privileging certain interest groups for no good reason other than to play on misguided public opinion, it's bad. We're not going to get 70-80% tax rates for the richest even with the Democrats, so a lot of these policies affect people who are less privileged than those the pols are trying to privilege either via more regressive taxation or "We can't afford this" refrain from Democrats when any broad economic proposal is put forth.
 
s0me0nesmind1 said:
Pretty spot on.

Want to know how you can ratchet up more white nationalism? Impose segregated safety nets.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure when I'm supposed to start sympathizing with the unwarranted concerns of white US Christians about some sort of invented history of dedicated subjugation and prejudice.

Seriously: what the fuck kind of argument is this?
 
zinfamous said:
I'm not sure when I'm supposed to start sympathizing with the unwarranted concerns of white US Christians about some sort of invented history of dedicated subjugation and prejudice.

Seriously: what the fuck kind of argument is this?
Click to expand...

It has to do with the stability of the nation you dimwit.

It has to do with coming together of Americans instead of outcasting one another into groups of "You're in the black group, you get reparations" or "You're in the LGBTBBQ group, therefore you're oppressed". "You're a CIS gender white male, therefore your opinion is at the lowest qualifying threshold". "You're a black trans woman, therefore you get +35 to your opinion credibility".

People will stop segregating the moment the supposed "oppressed" stop segregating. Comprende? If you want something to be normalized, what the fuck do you think calling special attention to does? (Hint: It certainly doesn't normalize it - quite the opposite).
 
s0me0nesmind1 said:
It has to do with the stability of the nation you dimwit.

It has to do with coming together of Americans instead of outcasting one another into groups of "You're in the black group, you get reparations" or "You're in the LGBTBBQ group, therefore you're oppressed". "You're a CIS gender white male, therefore your opinion is at the lowest qualifying threshold". "You're a black trans woman, therefore you get +35 to your opinion credibility".

People will stop segregating the moment the supposed "oppressed" stop segregating. Comprende? If you want something to be normalized, what the fuck do you think calling special attention to does? (Hint: It certainly doesn't normalize it - quite the opposite).
Click to expand...

see, that's the thing. The "oppressed," as you seem to disbelieve of their existence, aren't trying to segregate. They only ask for equal treatment.

You interpret this as special treatment and define them as actively trying to self-segregate, because they recognize generations of injustice, simply because of who they are. I mean, this is pretty obvious history. You seem to be upset that in such cases, it really is necessary that to achieve the goal of equal treatment, the law needs to step in and force anti-discrimination laws. These tend to work, if only slowly over generations. And like with the success of vaccines over generations, people like you and I didn't really live through the pretty terrible standards of health were the flu was a bit more of a death sentence, as with measels and pertussis or whatever. Same with Jim Crow and related civil rights issues--we didn't grow up with legalized discrimination. We live in a time period where this is being addressed...but it seems the difference between us is that with the same lack of exposure to these kind of injustices, you interpret that lack as "not really necessary to achieve the goal, it just leads to reverse-discrimination, reverse-racism.." or whatever made up word that is used to define a paradigm that actually doesn't exist; whereas I define it as evidence that the system is actually working to achieve its goals, if not perfectly all of the time.

For more evidence of this, see SCOTUS rolling back the Voting Rights Act, somehow interpreting the absence of "classic discrimination in voting today" as evidence that it is no longer needed--rather than as clear evidence that it is working as intended. Hell, just look at the immediate reaction of states like NC, MS, AL, GA after this ruling, if you want the only evidence anyone ever needs to understand how the latter interpretation is the correct one.

Do you understand the difference?

...better yet: do you care to understand the difference, because I think that's a better question for you. 😉
 
s0me0nesmind1 said:
It has to do with the stability of the nation you dimwit.

It has to do with coming together of Americans instead of outcasting one another into groups of "You're in the black group, you get reparations" or "You're in the LGBTBBQ group, therefore you're oppressed". "You're a CIS gender white male, therefore your opinion is at the lowest qualifying threshold". "You're a black trans woman, therefore you get +35 to your opinion credibility".

People will stop segregating the moment the supposed "oppressed" stop segregating. Comprende? If you want something to be normalized, what the fuck do you think calling special attention to does? (Hint: It certainly doesn't normalize it - quite the opposite).
Click to expand...
Yeah, the Trump supporter who insults everyone he disagrees with is really concerned about bringing the nation together. Especially when his 'one simple trick' to do that is that we just ignore everyone's historical grievances except for (of course) his own.
 
Last edited:
s0me0nesmind1 said:
It has to do with the stability of the nation you dimwit.

It has to do with coming together of Americans instead of outcasting one another into groups of "You're in the black group, you get reparations" or "You're in the LGBTBBQ group, therefore you're oppressed". "You're a CIS gender white male, therefore your opinion is at the lowest qualifying threshold". "You're a black trans woman, therefore you get +35 to your opinion credibility".

People will stop segregating the moment the supposed "oppressed" stop segregating. Comprende? If you want something to be normalized, what the fuck do you think calling special attention to does? (Hint: It certainly doesn't normalize it - quite the opposite).
Click to expand...
Privilege speaks!

"The beatings will continue until morale improves, you animals!" - someonesmindless1
 
zinfamous said:
see, that's the thing. The "oppressed," as you seem to disbelieve of their existence, aren't trying to segregate. They only ask for equal treatment.

You interpret this as special treatment and define them as actively trying to self-segregate, because they recognize generations of injustice, simply because of who they are. I mean, this is pretty obvious history. You seem to be upset that in such cases, it really is necessary that to achieve the goal of equal treatment, the law needs to step in and force anti-discrimination laws. These tend to work, if only slowly over generations. And like with the success of vaccines over generations, people like you and I didn't really live through the pretty terrible standards of health were the flu was a bit more of a death sentence, as with measels and pertussis or whatever. Same with Jim Crow and related civil rights issues--we didn't grow up with legalized discrimination. We live in a time period where this is being addressed...but it seems the difference between us is that with the same lack of exposure to these kind of injustices, you interpret that lack as "not really necessary to achieve the goal, it just leads to reverse-discrimination, reverse-racism.." or whatever made up word that is used to define a paradigm that actually doesn't exist; whereas I define it as evidence that the system is actually working to achieve its goals, if not perfectly all of the time.

For more evidence of this, see SCOTUS rolling back the Voting Rights Act, somehow interpreting the absence of "classic discrimination in voting today" as evidence that it is no longer needed--rather than as clear evidence that it is working as intended. Hell, just look at the immediate reaction of states like NC, MS, AL, GA after this ruling, if you want the only evidence anyone ever needs to understand how the latter interpretation is the correct one.

Do you understand the difference?

...better yet: do you care to understand the difference, because I think that's a better question for you. 😉
Click to expand...

I don't know what you specifically have in mind for reparations, but can you show me that it's about equal treatment? From my understanding of the subject, no one knows what the causes are for the gap in SES. Do you think Jews oppress whites? Do you think Asians oppress whites? Because there's a significant gap there, but it would be inane to suggest that's because of discrimination, so there are clearly other factors involved. Now can you show how much of the black-white gap is from discrimination, much less Jim Crow or slavery, which is far removed from recent generations of blacks doing roughly as poorly as blacks in the 50's?
 
Maxima1 said:
I don't know what you specifically have in mind for reparations, but can you show me that it's about equal treatment? From my understanding of the subject, no one knows what the causes are for the gap in SES. Do you think Jews oppress whites? Do you think Asians oppress whites? Because there's a significant gap there, but it would be inane to suggest that's because of discrimination, so there are clearly other factors involved. Now can you show how much of the black-white gap is from discrimination, much less Jim Crow or slavery, which is far removed from recent generations of blacks doing roughly as poorly as blacks in the 50's?
Click to expand...
It's almost like these questions might be better answered after the subject was thoroughly... wait for it... studied.
 
Well isn't this timely...
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/4/9/18302159/trump-racism-race-relations-pew-survey

f8d45214faf3232354e8555e73bf4c97.jpg

92fc4066c08eb4d4cfa57177e1d11391.jpg
 
The bit where they are more worried about being called a racist than doing anything about actual racism is equally telling. Fucking children.
 
UNCjigga said:
It may have been pandering back when all the Democrats in office were baby boomer white men. It isn't pandering when the elected representatives actually start to look like the people they represent--mix of men and women, straight or queer, young and old, different colors, different socioeconomic and educational backgrounds. Take a look at our newest Congress and the (ridiculously large) Dem candidate field running in 2020. Your "both sides" argument is starting to look flat.
Click to expand...

It has absolutely nothing to do with the makeup of who is running for 2020. Reparations for the relatives of slaves is a silly pipe dream at best. There are just too much BS to sort through.

Who pays for the reparations. If you pay it through taxes then African Americans will be paying their own reparations. How about peoples whose families didn't arrive in America until after the slaves were liberated, do they pay? Then again who do you pay? You shouldn't just pay anyone that is black. How do you prove your relatives were slaves at some point? How about African American families that didn't arrive in America until after slavery was abolished?

Impossible pipe dream with way too many unknowns. Almost as impossible as the green new deal getting rid of planes and building a train to Australia.

Just bringing this up as a possibility to gain African American votes is pandering. You know it and I know it. Anyone with a half a brain knows it.

It isn't going to happen, and shouldn't happen.
 
Last edited:
UNCjigga said:
I'd still rather they pander to people like me vs. billionaires. Is that so bad? If they're just pandering and not delivering on promises, then it's my job to hold them accountable.

If anything good is to come out of the Trump presidency, it's that politicians should be emboldened to say what they really think and propose policies they actually believe in. Messaging should come from the heart, not a marketing firm and focus groups.
Click to expand...


Their talk of repetitions is not coming from the heart. They are selling you a lie and you’re believing they’re sincere which is false. They want the office so will tell you whatever you want to hear to get you vote even though they know they’re lying to you and you probably know they’re lying too. This is an pandering that’s disrupting race relations in this country. The right does it too so don’t feel too bad.
 
UglyCasanova said:
Their talk of repetitions is not coming from the heart. They are selling you a lie and you’re believing they’re sincere which is false. They want the office so will tell you whatever you want to hear to get you vote even though they know they’re lying to you and you probably know they’re lying too. This is an pandering that’s disrupting race relations in this country. The right does it too so don’t feel too bad.
Click to expand...

All that from forming a committee to study the idea... with the likely conclusion that it's utterly impractical.
 
jackstar7 said:
Why do you want to make this issue more complicated than it already is?

Centuries of systemic racism require a wealth distribution adjustment. Not that surprisingly, this could be funded exclusively by billionaires and you'd never be affected.

Who do you think shouldn't be entitled? Make your list and send it to the committee. I'm sure they will give it due consideration.

In the meantime, what's your answer to addressing where we are as a society that disproportionately punishes and oppresses various communities? And if the black community was to get an influx of wealth, would that not positively affect all through the lower classes as they start new businesses, invest, and do all the other things that people given liquidity do?


EDIT: Do you think this would not be earned, and thus it is unjust? I want to get at the root of your issue here.
Click to expand...

My issue obviously, is that it is based on race. I would favor programs to help the poor and disadvantaged of *all* races, maybe something like the war on poverty during the LBJ administration, assistance based on need. Job training, educational assistance, health care, and so forth.
 
ondma said:
My issue obviously, is that it is based on race. I would favor programs to help the poor and disadvantaged of *all* races, maybe something like the war on poverty during the LBJ administration, assistance based on need. Job training, educational assistance, health care, and so forth.
Click to expand...
So you think we don't owe a debt to the people descended from slaves who continue to exist within a system that discriminates against them at just about every level?

Hey, I want to fight back in the class war as much as anyone and knock down billionaires and those aspiring to such absurd levels of personal wealth.

I just think it matters how we do it and actively ignoring an egregious wrong of our forefathers is, at best, irresponsible.
 
jackstar7 said:
This is aspirational, but not reality-based thinking.

People are already divided by race. Putting on a show of ignoring it doesn't actually help the affected parties, it just perpetuates the divisions and exacerbates the need to mend the rifts.
Click to expand...

The answer to defeating tribalism is NOT to promote tribalism.

Unity may be aspirational, it may not be where we stand today, but how is your slander of that goal a "reality-based" thinking? Was I have a Dream putting on a show of ignoring it? Did MLK just perpetuate the divisions and exacerbate the need to mend the rifts?

There is a crisis in modern day thinking. As if one can balance the scales on a national level, while ignoring individuals and their circumstances. Blacks are poorer than Whites, on average. Does that mean Black football stars are still poor? Does that mean working class Whites are still rich? People are too caught up in nation wide statistics that they ignore the humanity and varied experiences of individual people. Policy discussions such as these are blinded and participants cannot see the forest from the trees.

What you face is the wrath of a hungry people. Starved for two generations by trickle down delusions wrought by Republicans. Try telling them the economy is doing great, try telling them they are not abused or neglected. That they are not starving and looking for more. Wave some red juicy meat in front of a large hungry animal and see if you keep your arm attached. Then picture 2016 as doing just that.

I see here a continuation of the fallacy that you cannot pickup support by pledging to help people. All people.

jackstar7 said:
So you think we don't owe a debt to the people descended from slaves who continue to exist within a system that discriminates against them at just about every level?

Hey, I want to fight back in the class war as much as anyone and knock down billionaires and those aspiring to such absurd levels of personal wealth.

I just think it matters how we do it and actively ignoring an egregious wrong of our forefathers is, at best, irresponsible.
Click to expand...

How we correct it DOES matter a great deal. But first, are you not economically literate enough to understand the premise? Helping ALL people would help minorities. It would help the poorest people... the most. AKA, it is literally reparations in all but name. With the crucial difference being it actually attempts to unify people behind a common self interest. Rather than pitting one another against each other.

You being a "reality-based" segregationist in policy will only lead to division and hatred. It tells people you stand against them as an obstacle to their fulfillment. Something that must be opposed to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads. A source for all their stress. You become the scapegoat, a lightning rod for the ills of trickle down.

Yes, you may actively oppose trickle down, but it will matter not if you tell people that salvation is only for some, and especially not for them. Irresponsible is declaring war on a people and thinking that could stand. You are mistaken if you think segregationist policy can mend those wounds, and I would point to Dr. King as the path forward. E Pluribus Unum.
 
Thump553 said:
Your thread title: "Reparations bill wins new momentum in Congress" makes my point exactly. An honest title (and not one seeking to enflame partisanship) would have gone "Reparations study bill '....". You are in fact attempting to injure the supporters of this study bill "with the bulk of Americans" to use your own words.

And while I may be cynical about the Washington's studies, they do on occasion result in action-the formation of Homeland Security is a case in chief.
Click to expand...




To be fair, on your accusation, he used The Hill's article title as the thread title. The Hill is considered a reliable center to slightly left of center news source. He also quoted two statements that the bill was to commission a study. Anyone reading the OP's initial post would not be confused that this was bill to commission a study on reparations.

Regardless of the motives of the OP, it's obvious that this effort is being done by democrats and supported by multiple democratic presidential candidates to gain support for next year's presidential election from people who might benefit from this type of effort. To deny it is just being obtuse.

I am against individual reparations because of the complexity of implementing it fairly but I would be for "reparations" to groups/communities that were impacted by American slavery in the form of educational scholarships to help them have a better life, for example.
 
Jaskalas said:
The answer to defeating tribalism is NOT to promote tribalism.

Unity may be aspirational, it may not be where we stand today, but how is your slander of that goal a "reality-based" thinking? Was I have a Dream putting on a show of ignoring it? Did MLK just perpetuate the divisions and exacerbate the need to mend the rifts?

There is a crisis in modern day thinking. As if one can balance the scales on a national level, while ignoring individuals and their circumstances. Blacks are poorer than Whites, on average. Does that mean Black football stars are still poor? Does that mean working class Whites are still rich? People are too caught up in nation wide statistics that they ignore the humanity and varied experiences of individual people. Policy discussions such as these are blinded and participants cannot see the forest from the trees.

What you face is the wrath of a hungry people. Starved for two generations by trickle down delusions wrought by Republicans. Try telling them the economy is doing great, try telling them they are not abused or neglected. That they are not starving and looking for more. Wave some red juicy meat in front of a large hungry animal and see if you keep your arm attached. Then picture 2016 as doing just that.

I see here a continuation of the fallacy that you cannot pickup support by pledging to help people. All people.



How we correct it DOES matter a great deal. But first, are you not economically literate enough to understand the premise? Helping ALL people would help minorities. It would help the poorest people... the most. AKA, it is literally reparations in all but name. With the crucial difference being it actually attempts to unify people behind a common self interest. Rather than pitting one another against each other.

You being a "reality-based" segregationist in policy will only lead to division and hatred. It tells people you stand against them as an obstacle to their fulfillment. Something that must be opposed to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads. A source for all their stress. You become the scapegoat, a lightning rod for the ills of trickle down.

Yes, you may actively oppose trickle down, but it will matter not if you tell people that salvation is only for some, and especially not for them. Irresponsible is declaring war on a people and thinking that could stand. You are mistaken if you think segregationist policy can mend those wounds, and I would point to Dr. King as the path forward. E Pluribus Unum.
Click to expand...
You are an idealist to the point of ignoring realities and that isn't helpful.

Repairing wealth disparity has to take into account many factors if your goal is some measure of equality of starting point.

And you're twisting things to fit a narrative rather than acknowledging the things that don't fit and working to get to an equal starting point.

You think of black people get a UBI that suddenly cops aren't going to shoot so many?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top