Leaderboard

Talking about fantasy, historians discuss the Versailles treaty as one of many contributing factors, rather than drawing a direct line (the Nazis used it for their propaganda, though, which is in part where some of the myths came about). There have been proponents of this thesis, including contemporaries such as John Maynard Keynes. But some key facts weaken that argument. One is that before the NSDAP came to power the payments were effectively dead in the water, the sum was re-negotiated several times and payments were deferred (and basically cancelled in the Lausanne Conference). The actual payment provided were much less than Germany could have afforded after economic recovery in the interim period. And yes, it was a potent propaganda tool inasmuch as the felt impact was way higher than the actual one. However, in terms of economic destabilization the Great Depression had a much higher impact. So in that light, the "fact" is a bit iffy and trying to draw a line to the reparations under discussion requires a fair bit of mental gymnastics. What is rather similar are probably perception vs impact.

Sometimes you see the perfect fruit showing underneath some others and you tug at it and it just won't....budgie.

One corollary from that is that some folks focus on specific and individual damages, but overlook systemic challenges (such as long term impact of getting removed from economic and other benefits, invisible but baked in racialized policies, where color-blind application would perpetuate those harms, confinement in underdeveloped areas and so on). A second is that often these issues are seen as a weird zero-sum game. I.e. it seems that the argument is that systematically excluding one group from economic and societal gains is somehow the same as bringing them up to the same level. I.e. as long as the factor that did the division is brought up to remove the suppression, it is equivalent to suppression. Without removing all context, I just fail to see it as a symmetric proposition. I will also say that it is a bit dangerous to generalize these racialized policies based on the case of reparations. That one is something that can and should be more targeted, as there are ways to trace issues in an individualized way. However, general racialized policies cannot be tracked down to individuals (that is just not what policies are) and it is critical identify demarcation lines. For example, universities strive to create a diverse learning environment, but the question is how to recruit them. If we ignore race, the student body tends to be largely income based, resulting in a composition that represents well-off part of the population mostly. Providing stipends for low-income students bolsters that part of the composition, but looking at racial composition, we see that often low-income minorities do not benefit from it much. There are various reasons, starting at which schools they are, and what kind (if any) counseling they get, for example. So targeting those students and schools specifically can bolster the recruitment of minority students and to create the desired teaching environment. What has been shown in the US is that a color-blind application of stipends and benefits, the enrolment of minorities drop (and just to be clear, race would be just one of many factors used for admissions). Thus, the application of a color-blind policy results in racial inequity. And considering the impact of college on future income, it has knock-on effects of future trajectories. In other words, (and as the other articles I have posted) being color-blind can result in racial inequality, the very thing that color-blindness supposedly should end, but which in reality it just promotes (under the current system). I do agree that if we magically resolved every form of racism and racialized policies and dismantled all the systems that create inequality, then we may be able to switch to a color-blind perspective. However, starting with the latter is hitching the cart before the horse and is not getting us anywhere.

Wonder if one reason the debate over theft v reparation never resolves is a basic tension between the conservative and progressive philosophies. Conservatives emphasize personal responsibility and prog/liberals lean more on community responsibility. So cons are more liable to view paying for someone else's need (if they themselves did not personally cause that need) as a theft from them. That feeling informs their views on a range of public amenities which they may object to. E.g. I get to work on my own so why should I fund a mass transit bond? Or, my kids go to private school so why should I fund a public school system? Or, I didn't get you addicted to drugs so why should I help pay for a drug treatment center in my city? The prog rejoinder to such views usually boils down to Society should try to help lift everyone up; that creates a more livable and safer community which benefits everyone. This difference in perspective is very hard to resolve. In America especially where so many idealize the mythos of the rugged individualist and the Self-Made Man.

No. 21 pages in and it's still NO. If we somehow discovered we'd been systemically discriminating against people with albinism, those with almost no melanin, denying them the potential to prosper because of the way they look, what other factors do you want to consider besides those that make them albino? Seriously, this objection has NEVER made any sense to me. If a judge determines a thief who stole my money must pay that money back, is the judge practicing thievery by using money as a factor?

If you are prepared to use skin color as a factor for discrimination whether positive or negative then does that not automatically qualify it as racist? This is the argument that is often used by many racial activists on the flip side. My argument is more about changing people's attitude towards racism, a start would be to stop highlighting skin color differences in circumstances where it may invoke further racial tension. There are people out there who fully believe that if you are black then you cannot be a racist and that if you are white then this automatically makes you a racist. Then you have the very racist people who genuinely believe that skin color defines a person's status in society. These attitudes need to be expelled. My point being, skin color should have no influence. Discrimination both positive & negative by skin color has done nothing but cause harm to people either directly or indirectly. The people who have suffered injustice as a result of their skin color deserve reparations, full agreed. However, iNow keeps point out to me that an ideological system which I may envision will not work. Maybe iNow is correct (nothing is infallible). All I'm trying to point out is that invoking further discrimination by skin color, even if positive, may not in the long run produce positive outcomes for all and may further invoke directly or indirectly negative racial attitudes. Honestly I'd be a fool to say I have an answer, maybe the sensible approach is to follow your proposed system. But again honestly, I'm of the opinion that to eradicate racism is to change people's attitudes towards it, starting with stop making a deal about all physical differences, including skin color.

Doubtful, especially given the regional nature of that behavior. I think some people are just tight asses when sexuality is involved, even more so among those who feel guilty for sex or ashamed about sex or unconfident about their weiner or maybe fearful of burning for eternity due solely to dreaming of someones weiner being placed inside their own otherwise tight ass. Basically, religion. (j/k)

Thank you to everyone!

GRIND GRIND GRIND GRIND GRIND GRIND GRIND GRIND GRIND GRIND GRIND GRIND buff buff buff Many. This is a typical medium duty one for an industrial workshop. From whatever a decent domestic power drill costs these days upwards. Consider looking at taking a training course in basic metalworking first. It is REALLY easy to lose an eye or a finger with these things if you get it wrong.

Interesting to hear of this study which suggests some people may be able to sense a rotation of an earth-strength magnetic field, around 50 microtesla, experiencing a shift in alpha rhythms... https://www.science.org/content/article/humans-other-animals-may-sense-earth-s-magnetic-field#:~:text=A study published today offers,can sense Earth's magnetic field. https://www.eneuro.org/content/6/2/ENEURO.0483-18.2019 Definitely needs followup study.

It keeps changing. I have limited access to current programming though my CBC subscription; otherwise, streaming or DVD when the internet's down. ATM, Dr. Blake on Knowledge Network (they've started to rerun it from the beginning) and I've just finished the Madam Secretary DVD's and started again on Numbers. We have bot X Files and Fringe, but I'm just not in the mood for fictional horror when there is so much of the real thing loose out there.

Evidence? You have no more idea of how I feel, than you do about reparations. I don't feel bad, I feel slightly irritated to read it, because I like to stay within the bounds of reality, and fantasy just niggles me. There might be some tokenism, performed to attract votes from some quarters, but there won't be reparations on any real scale. It's just fantasy. And in any case, they are not always a good thing. The reparations imposed on Germany after WW1 directly created the atmosphere for WW2. That's widely accepted by historians as a fact. Just a small matter of about fifty million deaths, and enormous squandered resources, laid directly at the door of WW1 reparations.