zapatos

I don't know where you picked that up. Just because we want a solution for unjust laws targeting race, that doesn't mean we object to making the framework flexible. Why would we? I apologize but I got the same sense of your stance as Phi for All. So you do support reparations to blacks who were impacted by racist laws? If so then our only area of dispute may be how to do so.

That is not the case here. The US legal system is not a remedy due to sovereign immunity. It is like asking the courts to rule on which ballerina is the most graceful; it is simply not in their purview. The government must voluntarily take responsibility for its actions or it will not happen. There is no mechanism to compel them to do so. 1. Against the government, which was the organization that harmed them. 2. I'm sure every harmed person has their own opinion of what would satisfy them, but since all were generally harmed financially (as well as other ways) financial restitution comes up frequently. Affirmative Action was an attempt to grant blacks more opportunities to attend college since that was another way the government restricted minorities. People have set up goals for granting minority contracts since minorities were unfairly excluded in the past. The list goes on and on. Generally speaking the idea is to get people to the place they would have been if the government had not interfered.

Perhaps instead of 'explaining why' you disagree, you can show us evidence, not just your thoughts on the topic, on how SR is wrong. Evidence would include observations described in scientific journals, math, etc. This is after all a science site, and thus science is what is required when discussing scientific theories.

Exactly. We want the government to fix things. We can ask them, cajole them, implore them to fix things. But the government itself must agree to fix things and then take the appropriate steps. They took the first step, which was to change overtly racist laws that targeted blacks. There are still steps to take in order to change laws and systems that are not overtly racist, yet still result in similar unfair outcomes for blacks. Additionally the government should take a look at the harm they've caused and decide what they are going to do about it. This unsurprisingly is what generates the most controversy because 1. it is going to cost us (a lot of) money, and 2. because the compensation benefits a lot black people. In this country racism has been baked in for hundreds of years to the point that people often don't even recognize it. If people heard that the government wrongly took the business belonging to an individual white woman, there would be significant support to have the government make reparations (compensations given for an abuse or injury). But if people hear the government financially harmed a bunch of black people, rather than jump to the support of those black people, people tend to look for reasons the government should NOT make reparations ("I was not personally responsible. It happened a long time ago. It is racist to help people based on race. It is not fair to non-black people. We fixed the cause of the problem, why should we also have to give compensation for the harm we did?" etc.) Reparations should not be viewed as "Write a check to all black people." It should be viewed as a review of what harm was done, to whom, and what should we do about it. Since we had laws that kept black people out of college, we made an attempt to get more black people in college. (This is seen as racist to some.) There have been suggestions that since blacks were not allowed to buy homes, we can now let them buy a house at the cost they would have paid at the time they were turned down (with the party responsible for the harm, the government, paying the difference). There are a thousand ways to try to make up for the harm caused. We just need to take a little responsibility for what we've done wrong. Same as we teach our kids to do.

A person applies for a home loan. There is only one area of a town they are allowed to live in due to their skin color. Even though they have the same income as a white man who lives in a different part of town, the white man gets the home loan but the black man does not based on where the homes they want to buy are located. You can check loan applications, real estate records, redlined maps, etc. The degree to which he needs help exactly matches the degree to which he has been harmed. The details of which are settled in court. The FHA, part of the US government, established these practices. This is really basic stuff and only the tip of the iceberg. It is surprising you are not aware of this type of activity. Unfortunately there are not. Sovereign immunity protects the state from being held liable for damages. 'Generalised reparations" are the only avenue.

Unfortunately I do not personally know everyone who lived within the boundaries of redlined districts. As far as I know people are not seeking retribution. They are seeking justice.

Because we are talking about reparations (among other things). Perhaps you missed part of the thread. They experienced an injustice in the past. They suffer a harm now.

I personally know people who suffered financial harm at the hands of US government laws that only negatively impacted black people. This is not some deep, dark mystery.

Sure, that was me! It had absolutely nothing to do with his response to you. I would have upvoted him no matter what he said. The reason I gave his post an upvote was because you got annoyed that he received an upvote previously. Sometimes I cannot suppress that little bit of troll in me... 🤪

I know it can feel that way as taxpayers are generally on the hook for reparations, but those seeking reparations are not intending to make it personal for you. They know YOU did not harm them. It is the government, with its laws that harmed a specific racial group, that is being asked to provide reparations. The government that caused the harm is the same government that is alive and well today. It is no different than if a corporation knowingly sold a faulty product that harmed its customers. That company is on the hook for its misdeeds, even if it has a complete turnover of shareholders, who are of course the ones who ultimately pay for the harm done by their company. Additionally, while it is easier to look at these government misdeeds as something that happened long ago, the government has had laws that specifically target harm on blacks even during my lifetime.

In the case of academic positions, Affirmative Action is not intended to 'fix the problem of discrimination'. The intention is to make amends to a class of people for previous bad acts. It is true that some will be harmed in that case as there are only so many academic positions to go around. If done right, AA can minimize the pain inflicted on the current generation while still helping the previous generation who was harmed. We have to decide if we want to spread the pain around, or just allow it to stay where it began, with the minorities.

Not vague at all. People are alive today who were adversely affected financially by the Federal Government of the US. They can show evidence of, for instance, being denied loans for housing that went to white people. How much specific detail do you require?

So let's say your parents had $1 million and intended to pass it on to you when they died. Before they die, it is unjustly taken from them by the government. Do you feel that since your parents are now gone, and thus can not get the restitution they deserve, that there is no need for the government to give the money back to you rather than to your parents? Giving restitution to families is very much a part of our system. If a company is negligent, and as a result an employee or customer dies, they company is forced to make amends to the family who thus suffers financially due to the unjust death. I would argue that the family is also deserving.

I believe the impasse between you and some others simply lies in where the focus is. You are focusing on the trees while others are focusing on the forest. Here is an example to illustrate my point. You see unfairness in a particular situation, say, a black individual getting preference over a white individual for an academic opening. Others see unfairness in the big picture, say, many thousands of academic openings over the past 100 years where whites received preference over blacks. I think all will agree that at the moment we have an unfair distribution of academic positions that favor whites. If we follow your solution to the problem (make all selections fair for all) then eventually (maybe 50 years when we get to the point where all positions have been distributed fairly) there will be a fair distribution of academic positions. If we follow their solution (preferential selections) then eventually (maybe 25 years when we get to the point where the people in the academic positions mirror what would have happened had things been fair all along) there will be a fair distribution of academic positions. It seems your focus is on the individual, where the focus of others is on society, not that either side is ignoring the concerns of the other. Note: I am not saying everyone has these exact beliefs. Besides academics this could apply to loans, housing, police protections, etc. I am only using this example to illustrate where each side is coming from. We seem to continue to repeat the same arguments over time without ever making any headway.

On re-reading my post I feel as if I was a bit snarky in parts and too late to edit. Apologies.

Sorry but I have to call BS on this one. Can you provide a citation that shows this is "the attitude"? In the olympics for example they have very specific rules to ensure that the small subset does NOT dominate. It feels as if the "extreme" position you accuse others of having only exists in YOUR mind, not in theirs. Taking part IS what counts in some situations, and is not 'the part that counts' in others. You cannot simply lump all sports together into one big pool. What IS a cop out is implying that at elite levels of sports that there is an 'attitude' that 'taking part' is what counts. Again, that is an attitude you are simply attributing to others. And assuming you can find the occasional person with such an extreme position, as I said in my first post, this is much ado about nothing. ALL situations when there are differences of opinion will bring out some with an extreme position even though most do not have extreme positions, and those extremists can generally be dismissed. But with trans people in sports now (and previously inter racial marriage, gay marriage, women being allowed to vote), some opponents attribute extreme positions to ALL those who want to see trans people in sports. On a science site we should be able to discern between extremist views meant to get a reaction, and those aspects of a problem that are germane to reasonable debate. I don't think you'd find it fair if I acted as if those who don't want trans in sports have "the attitude" that such trans people are getting their dicks cut off only because it will help them win a competition. I'm advocation for humans who want to do anything. People in wheelchairs did not used to eat at many restaurants or go to other public facilities because we made no attempt to accommodate their special situation. But even though some objected we looked for a solution to the problem and implemented it. People with physical disabilities couldn't play sports, but even though some objected we looked for a solution and found one. People with Down Syndrome could not attend schools but even though some objected we looked for a solution and found one. People who are trans cannot complete at different levels of sports and while many are looking for solutions (e.g. Olympics), others have decided it is impossible and that there is no need to look for a solution. I choose to be on the side of those looking for a solution and feel comfortable that one will eventually be found.

Unfortunately we cannot even agree on what is 'extreme'. I remember the teacher who got in trouble for using the word 'niggardly', which I found to be extreme. However I don't feel that trying to find a place in sports for a subset of my fellow humans any more extreme than trying to accommodate those who are confined to wheelchairs. Trying to find the middle ground is tough when I feel I'm already in the middle and you feel I am at the extreme.

Sigh... Citations?

Are you the Imperial Wizard or are you just a rank and file member?

We started a couple of years ago too. Soft Landings are another good way to cut down on mowing that we've incorporated into our yard. https://www.pollinatorsnativeplants.com/softlandings.html

Neither. Just business as usual. Whether we are talking politics, coffee, aerobic training vs weight training, WTC collapse, moon landings, UAVs, vaccines, violence in video games, school dress codes, Apple vs Android, collecting Precious Moments figurines/beer cans/sports memorabilia, or absolutely anything else in the world where people have an opinion, you are going to find that a smattering of people take things to the extreme. Seems to be human nature and something we can generally dismiss. I'm sure soon we'll be seeing battles over whether or not people are unfairly favoring angiosperms over gymnosperms.

Who is this Rorschach guy and why does he paint so many pictures of my mother in the nude?

Why do engineers confuse Halloween and Christmas? Because Oct. 31 = Dec. 25