Phi for All

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.

This just seems like such a leap, like you're purposely obfuscating the point. The bully belongs to a group that should be punished?! Jesus. I'm giving up on analogy. I'll put it plainly. White people have benefitted from discrimination against people of color, and now that it's being pointed out, some white folks agree that it was wrong but think merely fixing the laws or behavior is enough, and I don't agree. Lifting the oppression is one thing, a good thing, but repairing the damage is also a crucial part of righting wrongs. You consider the founding fathers "bullies and oppressors"? Have you expressed this before and I just missed it? The founding fathers were pretty clear about the need to constantly update (amend) the US Constitution. They gave us the mechanism of the Continental Congress, and many folks think we should finally convene the third one. Modern conservatives/evangelicals pretty much cherry-pick what they want from the original document, like assuming the 1st Amendment protections for religion are only for Christians. They focus on the 2nd Amendment while ignoring the 6th, 8th and 13th, something they also do with their Bible. Then they claim both documents and their interpretations of them are sacred and can't be changed. I don't blame the founding fathers for the way we've allowed some folks to push their perspectives on us all.

What did you think, that only white taxpayers pay reparations? No wonder your arguments seem so strange to me! And I'm sorry, but it does come down to one specific group who needs to pay: US citizens. It was our government that allowed the discrimination to happen in the first place. We, the People, are ALWAYS on the hook for the horrible things we let our leadership represent us in. If it happens this way, it will be a crime, imo, unless "smooth it out" means making amends. How can I make you see how unfair what you're proposing is? If a bully is stealing my child's lunch money every day for a month, when the bully is caught I don't just want it stopped. That's what the bully wants, because he can find another child to bully. I want that bully to pay for his own lunch AND my child's lunch every day for a month. It not only has a much better chance of correcting the bad behavior, it also serves justice and reason. Without reparations, you're just a bully trying to get off scot-free at the expense of others. That's what I hear from this argument. "So sorry you've been treated this way. I promise to stop taking advantage of discrimination against people who look like you. I'll take what advantages I've already got and bother you no more. Sound fair?"

Actually, in all my examples, I left out the "interest" that probably should be paid, but otherwise you're correct on my stance. And how is your version of your argument different than my version? You claim modern generations should simply acknowledge they made a mistake, learn from it, and promise not to do it again going forward. IOW, "You caught me, let's move on and I won't do it again", or "Sorry, I know I inadvertently helped burn you, but two wrongs don't make a right, so I think it's wrong for you to burn me back"? So I disagree with your definition of "crock of crap". Very vivid, I'll grant you, but I'm just not seeing the distinction. Actually, I'm asking The People. If the US pays reparations, it'll be taxpayers of all color who pay for the crimes against a specific group. Germany has been paying Holocaust survivors for over 70 years now. https://apnews.com/article/holocaust-survivor-compensation-fund-germany-0d35aa1cba7756d1b9b6008e9d7841b7 There it is! "Sorry, I know I inadvertently helped burn you, but two wrongs don't make a right, so I think it's wrong for you to burn me back". When someone wins a settlement against a big, unfeeling corporation that ruined their lives through negligent behaviors and ruthless business tactics, do you immediately assume it's about revenge? I might consider that if the settlement was so large it bankrupted the corporation, but like reparations, payments like these aren't onerous enough to be considered "rather vengeful", imo. "Some pay back is due"? I thought you were against reparations? This is really all anyone has been asking, that some reparations be made to people who were severely disadvantaged illegally as US citizens. I'm focusing on one group because this thread was about whiteboards being racist. Are you really arguing that we should ignore this because history shows us it's a common cultural thing? Well, now you're taking my analogy too far. It was just meant to highlight the hypocrisy of getting caught doing something bad to others and thinking that just stopping is enough. We're talking about groups of citizens that were disadvantaged in favor of white citizens, so your connection to the crime is quite a bit closer than the thief in my analogy. If you're white in the US, you've had advantages over black people that you weren't supposed to, according to our constitution.

! Moderator Note Moved to Physics, although "aging" has more biological aspects, but let's establish what the question means wrt time.

Co-write the script with your son, get Sandra Bullock and George Clooney to star, and shoot the space scenes in a studio?

Look instead at fixing the results of discrimination by compensating the ones discriminated against. Your stance seems to indicate the only fair thing is to stop the discriminatory practices, and leave it at that. How is that fair, equitable, or equal? Isn't that like catching a thief, finding him guilty, and then letting him go? Let's go back to the discriminatory housing loans. Does giving no-interest loans as compensation to people who've been discriminated against seem unfair to you because you would have objected to the practice if you'd known about it? Does it seem unfair because you were never part of the conspiracy that worked behind the scenes to orchestrate racist housing laws, and it seems like agreeing to make loans like this available is an admission of guilt? I struggle to see why you think it's better to catch an administration using racist practices and just make them stop, rather than catching them, making them stop, and fixing what they broke in the government's name?

I meant that you're generalizing about financial compensation for ethnic wrongs always being a bad thing.

And you're generalizing in the other case. Is financial compensation for past ethnic wrong in every case? Or is this being dismissed because it seems like "fighting fire with fire"? But it shouldn't ONLY be that. The US passed the Civil Liberties Act in 1988 under Reagan, and in 1990 representatives of Bush I's administration acknowledged that the US was wrong to put Japanese-Americans in internment camps at the beginning of WWII, vowed to spend funds to educate Americans about this wrong, and gave checks for $20,000 to survivors. Unfortunately, later administrations reallocated the funding for educating students about the internment, but in general it was seen as a successful example of ethnic reparations.

Yuk! I think you need to refocus. Basing any hypothesis (what you have is NOT a theory) on observing yourself is very risky. Your own biases need to be compensated for, and that's not something you can do well on your own, by definition.

I'm confusing nothing (except you, perhaps). But the white folks were given preferential treatment for a long time. You can end that practice to give equal opportunity to all, but you've done nothing to make it up to the people of color who suffered while the practice existed. You're just saying, "Oooops, you caught us, that was wrong, we'll stop doing this now that we've benefited heavily from it!" This has been the white solution for a loooooooong time. Apologize afterwards, but do nothing to make amends. This is about regulations that kept POC from benefiting from the same system white people do. Single-family zoning was regulated to segregate POC from the white communities, and home ownership means a huge difference in net worth. White regulators turned housing in the US into a de jure system that's basically unconstitutional, according to the 5th, 13th, and 14th amendments. Even if you change the zoning laws, you still have generations of POC who were unfairly discriminated against. I'm unsure why you think some kind of reparation is reverse discrimination, but what I do know is that your stance ensures NOTHING will be done. Let me ask you this. If it's found that a company has been discriminating against black employees by not paying them the same as their equally skilled white employees, is it discriminatory in your view to compensate them? IOW, if this company paid their black employees $30K per year for five years while the white folks made $50K, do you think it would be reverse discrimination to pay those black employees $70K per year for the next five years to compensate them? With reparations, ALL the employees make $500K in 10 years. I don't agree with this premise. The only thing the typical solutions do is to stop a specific predatory tactic, without considering the damage done by those tactics. If a farmer destroys a field by planting the same crop every year without rotating them, the solution isn't to just stop planting that crop. You need to also do what you can to make the soil fertile enough for all the things you want to grow. You mean like modern forestry, or fighting oil well fires? Are you arguing against the use of controlled burns and backfiring? Do you question the methodology of explosives to put out an oil well fire? Sorry, but this argument falls flat for me. I understand that you're really saying, "Sorry, I know I inadvertently helped burn you, but two wrongs don't make a right, so I think it's wrong for you to burn me back", but it just comes off as "You caught me, let's move on and I won't do it again" to my ears.

Just so we're clear, a possible solution like no-interest government loans for people who've been denied loans due to racist practices, are you saying it's a non starter because it gives preferential treatment, so you claim it's fighting racism with racism? If so, it would seem anything that's done to correct past mistakes is a non starter for you. You just want to keep doing the same things, sailing the same direction, and that's what will help, do I have this right?

What would you do to rule out genetic factors?

This distorts the definitions and makes them worthless to me. It sounds like you're trying to tell me an infant can be born with the ability to drive precisely. I can't use that for anything and still call it reasoning. You keep yawning on and on about this, but nobody here is focused on making money from these discussions. Stop using this excuse not to support your arguments fully. Let's use the methodology you praise so highly and stop making this personal. Nobody is talking about you. We're discussing your ideas, and testing them against what we observe. Sounds like a political problem, something you and science have in common. Here's why I don't agree with your definitions. It's ALL belief, what we choose to take in as knowledge. It's what that belief is based on that matters. Is it based on blind faith because someone you trust a lot says so? Is it based on wishful thinking on our part, something we'd like very much to be true but can't quite explain to anyone else? Or is the belief based on trust, because you taken the painstaking, plodding steps of the scientific method in order to be as certain as possible that you have the best supported explanation to believe in? I also think you're fooling yourself about self-evident vs nonsense. Can you show me something self-evident that doesn't involve your opinion or judgement? Can you be objective about self-evident knowledge?