Phi for All

I disagree. Compensation is the surgery AND the physical therapy to help heal the patient to hospital standards. Just changing the laws is the plaster, but both are necessary.

We're a science discussion forum. Hiding information through private messages isn't our style. Can you just ask some questions regarding DNA that you're unsure of, rather than posting the actual text?

! Moderator Note Book Talk is more about discussing books we've read. This falls under a Biology category, so I'm moving this there for now. Do you have an excerpt to share regarding your take on DNA, or are you asking folks to read the whole book?

! Moderator Note Moved from The Sandbox (which is for testing LaTex) to The Lounge. I don't think evolution has a goal, but I've often thought humans were special because we came up with a way to leave the planet if necessary. Not sure we're going to find a safer world, or a more long-lasting one (how many billions of years do you need?), but I think we're the only species that could take other species with us when colonizing.

This is such a ridiculous premise that I no longer feel you're arguing in good faith. It's pretty easy to look up black groups that are petitioning for reparations for redlining practices, so I feel that you're just making me post more links you won't read. But this is MigL's thread about a specific instance, and I've helped blow it up into a full discussion about racism. If someone would like to discuss the subject in good faith, I'll happily join that discussion, but this one has suddenly become about something else. Enjoy.

In the US, we have a history of demanding segregation, but when black communities began to prosper, they were burned or flooded out. Part of NYC's Central Park used to be the thriving black community of Seneca Village until they were run off by NYC police. I knew you wouldn't read the links. Here are some excerpts: Please read this. It's in English, and it's not very long.

I wasn't talking about "current" violations. Specifically, I've been referencing the FHA redlining practices which crippled a few generations of black Americans. Current transgressions seem to have been left vague because I wasn't talking about them.

Stuff like this tells me you've run out of reason, and you're lashing out in frustration. This doesn't sound like it's about your OP.

Just to repeat myself, the incident we've been discussing for a few pages is the redlining practices that the FHA implemented. If you're ignorant on the subject, here's some knowledge: https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history-of-how-the-u-s-government-segregated-america https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining Now let's be clear. These practices were inflicted on people of color other than blacks with the same negative results in mortgage loans, student loans, credit cards, banking, and insurance. Are you going to ignore my evidence just because you think it's only my opinion that this negatively affected black people? This is me cringing in anticipation, because I don't think you're actually going to read either of my links. My prediction is that you're going to waffle because redlining affected Latinx and other ethnic groups as well.

I read what you actually wrote, and yes, I was looking for fault because I do that with EVERYTHING people say, it's part of a very successful methodology. But I wasn't looking for fault "because [you were] being contrarian to [my] opinion". I found much of your neutrality definition troublesome. When I read, "I might argue that I have a better view, precisely because I am a neutral outside observer and not overly influenced by a lifetime of social influences that I can't tease apart from logical thought", it seemed clear you think your lack of experience in racial issues somehow makes you a better judge of them. Can you see how that makes little sense? If I want an impartial umpire for the baseball game, I should get someone who's never played the game? Except we're talking about injustices perpetrated by our government against an ethnic group. Unless people other than the affected group (you know them as "busy-bodies") care enough to "interfere", the injustice continues. Btw, I don't think very highly of your definition of "compassion" either, FWIW. But we were talking about MY government disenfranchising an ethnic group. I very much feel that's my concern, since it affects my fellow citizens. I don't think holding my government accountable for their actions is "butting in". I don't understand your position at all, to be honest. I think it weakens the best parts of a society.

I know this is the Lounge, but you're making a LOT of assumptions here that deserve to be challenged. I'm not really interested in how you arrived at "honey is an amoral food source", I just know that it's not something that should be posted on a science discussion forum as if it's a fact. If you don't have a link to a study, or at least some reason to link bee-thanking to ethics, statements like this are anecdotal at best. Are you trying to link insect intelligence to the taste of honey? Are you playing with ChatGPT, or are you using some kind of translation software?

Relate this to the housing discrimination we've most recently been talking about. 80 years ago, the US government (Canada too) set up the redlining process to keep ethnic people from owning property in white areas. The practice was a secret one, the effects weren't known until studies were done later, and it was a legal practice supported by the FHA. How would you have punished the injustice when it happened when the white folks perpetrating the discrimination were doing it legally? How do you punish the government when it's the cause of the injustice? I know the answer, do you? Here here! Unfortunately, Christo-fascist conservatives in my country prevent this from happening, and they believe like you that paying reparations to black families disenfranchised by the FHA's redlining practices is an absolute no-go. Can you please talk some sense into them about the Equal Rights Amendment? Yes! You're on a roll now! No, yes, yes, yes, I think it's a lack of compassion for the "others" we've been trained to hate and trying like fools and liars to make 100% capitalism work. But now you're off in new thread territory.

Clearly, the US was right to enact laws that discriminated against this particular group of people. I'm sorry, but I think that's a horrible misuse of the term "neutrality". If I have it right, you're saying that you're neutral wrt racial biases if they don't apply to you? If you aren't black, you can't give a shit about what happens to black people? Please thank your friend for marching in solidarity with the BLM movement even though they aren't black. To me, that's someone who understands that compassion is more important to this species than competition.

Actually, I have to admit I had no idea what you were talking about when you brought up "neutrality" wrt what the rest of us were talking about, which was racial biases. I don't know what a "'neutral' person" is, or how to go about defining one when it comes to racial bias. I hope this isn't a red herring, but what's the difference between a normal person with racial biases and a neutral person?

I asked, "I'd like to know if Jez thinks we DON'T all have biases." It was definitely asked in good faith. I'm honestly unsure of where you stand now. Do we not ALL have biases, or are you somehow magically neutral in that regard?

OK. You originally claimed to be neutral wrt racial bias, and I think iNow (and I) took that to mean you had no biases. But you've cleared it up that, of course, we ALL have biases. So isn't the idea that one can be bias-free only be held by either a fool or a liar? Is anyone defending the belief that they are completely unbiased? I think he's only calling YOU a fool or a liar if you believe you have no biases. It's the same response I'd give if someone told me they could survive a twenty-story fall wearing just a grin and a Speedo. How are you going to take such a huge leap without addressing instances of discrimination, which is the actionable part of racism? The law doesn't say anything about punishing racists, just those who discriminate against groups of people. This seems like you're saying "The first step in winning any race is to cross that finish line!" Don't you have to do a LOT of little things first to insure that you have a chance to put a toe on that line? And this insistence that a focus on the victims of state discrimination is wrong simply because those victims were singled out BECAUSE of their race and the only ways to make it right, by definition, is by using race as a factor. OMG, MigL, you may not be a racist but they want you as legal counsel. Using your definitions, the US will never have to compensate any taxpayer funded discrimination done to groups of people. I'm sorry if I missed it, but have you suggested alternatives that involve more than just "Stop that!"?

One of our principles here is that we only attack ideas, not the people who have them, so I could tell from the way iNow phrased it that he was trying to adhere to that principle. It's not name-calling to say that an idea is foolish, it's not calling you a fool, just the idea. The distinction is important if we want to discuss anything meaningfully. And see, you claim to me to be neutral wrt biases, but later in this post you admit to iNow that "of course we all have biases". The "of course" tells me you might even suggest that it would be foolish to think otherwise. Does this make sense to you? I'm sorry, this is exactly what I thought YOU were espousing, that reparations are just more discrimination, so we should put a stop to it when we discover it, and nothing more. Perhaps I got this impression because you didn't offer any alternative other than what I consider criminal behavior. I tried to explain my position and even offer some links to support it. If this is your method, then you're right, I don't agree with it. It seems like giving criminal behavior a pass as long as the perp promises not to do it again.

I'd like to know if Jez thinks we DON'T all have biases. I thought it was phrased in a rhetorical way. Is this not a given? I could definitely be wrong.

If I were a criminal, I'd wholeheartedly agree with Intoscience. "Ooops, you're right, I did something bad, but I won't do that something anymore. Since there's no punishment, I'll have plenty of time and resources to think of something else." This is the formula that makes crime pay.

And this is where I think you and those supporting your stance are wrong. You think reparations are "reverting to the same tactics which caused the unfair treatment in the first place", which is plainly silly. The tactics used to cause the problems with discrimination were based on trying to stop a specific group of citizens from prospering along with the rest of the citizens. You can't equate reparations with those tactics. Do you really believe reparations are designed to keep white people from prospering? What kind of ugly paper are you wrapping reparations in that you can claim it's racism? Again, I think y'all are using semantics to insist that reparations fits your definition of discrimination, so you won't even consider it, you kill it and stick your fingers in your ears. I sure wish you'd give up defending that hill because you're dying there and it's killing folks you don't know.

This seems like semantics. The people targeted by unjust federal housing regulations mentioned earlier were black, denied loans for housing in certain areas because they were black. If we want to talk about reparations for those unjust federal practices, what other metric would you use to compensate them other than by the race that was used to discriminate against them? They'd already have to provide documentation that their loans (or their parent's loans) were denied, and the rest is already in evidence. You seem to be arguing against a man of straw here, since any reparations paid by the federal government would require hoops to jump through and evidence of eligibility. It's like you're assuming the government is going to throw cash at people who can show dark enough skin. Reading them all led me to respond exactly the way I did. Well, my question was directed at MigL, whom I quoted before responding, but I don't understand what your objection is here. You basically removed "... by certain practices" from what I said. I'm unsure why you "don't think I would have said that", but I may be misreading what you wrote. How many examples would you like? I'd like to start with historical incidents where black prosperity was actively stifled by white people who'd demanded and achieved segregated towns and cities. Some whites were so jealous of black prosperity that they trumped up ways to get the government to help them destroy black communities. I'd rather show that research than go down the whataboutism rabbit hole regarding "There were black people who owned slaves!!!" Well, Jesus Christ, you can sure support those white people who've fallen into social misfortune with programs of their own that make sense, but we aren't talking about those people in this thread. Just because there have been other maligned groups doesn't mean you don't do what you can for the one that's hurting the most in a particular incident. Do me a favor and picture yourself a foster father. You have four wonderful girls, and one is Asian, another Latinx, the third black, and the fourth white. One day your little black daughter comes to you and says, "Dad, I had a really hard day today. The kids at school were making fun of the color of my skin, they made slave jokes, and they said lots of other horrible things. I just need to know, Dad. Do you love me?" What do you say to her? I really, really hope you don't say, "Honey, I love ALL my daughters".

I'm going to point out that we aren't talking about lots of individuals, we're talking about groups of people who were discriminated against NOT as individuals, but because of negative stereotypes made about the group. If you want reparations for indentured workers, there are ways to determine how those groups were mistreated. And we should figure that out pretty quickly too, considering the US uses indentured servitude through prison labor to this very day. Big companies like McDonald's and Whole Foods and IBM use prisoners that are paid less than a dollar an hour, so we've already got some good metrics to use if we want reparation for indentured servitude. Please leave obvious Strawman arguments out of this discussion. Did anyone make this claim? Taxation currently favors the uber-wealthy by an inordinate degree. Without some kind of graduated tax that stops wealth accumulation at a reasonable level, we get billionaires sitting on their fortunes instead of investing them. Right now, because of the taxation you value so highly, these rich folks can hoard cash and buy out anyone with less money who's in distress. They're gobbling up people's lives just to have a bit more wealth. This is really a sticking point for you, this perspective that attempting to correct racism is automatically racist no matter how it's approached. You want it to stop, but not if you determine that the method of stopping violates your weird discrimination maths. So far, you've admitted that black people were treated unfairly by certain practices, and you want those practices to cease, but you don't want any black people to be compensated for the effects of these practices, have I got that right? Because you'd be giving compensation to a group that deserves it, but not giving it to anyone who isn't in that group, so that's discrimination? I just don't get it. You seem to have a sense of justice, but it gets overridden by this perspective about solving discrimination being discrimination itself.

! Moderator Note This is a science discussion forum, and nobody is interested in promoting your business, but I suppose it would be interesting to hear how you use philosophy in your counseling. If you can engage on that subject, I can leave this thread open, but otherwise posting to advertise your business is against our rules.

You're saying I need an objective definition of what being discriminated against really means before I can address reparations for the Tulsa Race Massacre? Wouldn't it be a LOT easier for you to try to define it in a way where it wasn't discrimination participated in by state and local government? This request for objectivity in the definitions rings hollow, like a stall tactic. Until the victim's definition matches your own, we do nothing about their claims, right? I think our approach to racism in the US needs a great deal of improvement, and your argument sounds like being content with the status quo to me.

I think it's absurd to assume that any kind of reparation would be judged by a single factor. It's easy to dismiss a solution when it's been pinched down to worthlessness. Cannot? And yet there are many examples where just that was done. I've given some earlier in the thread.