Physical Revue says "Whiteboards are Racist"

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

I ( my opinion ) don't see how you fix the problem of discrimination by using more  discrimination.
It smacks of the Trrumpian idea ( sorry about the unfair comparison ) that you solve the problem of gun violence with more guns.

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?

[CharonY]

I also wanted to add that these discussions often read like a failure of semantics and/or logic. Essentially the argument seems to be that racism caused issues, so anything that integrates race would be racist and therefore continue to cause issues.

In my mind it is a bit like saying that poverty caused by redistributing wealth upward, cannot be solved by changing the redistribution of wealth, as this is what caused the issue in the first place.

As such, it seems that the only solution is to keep the status quo, which seems counterintuitive.

[Intoscience]

15 hours ago, Phi for All said:

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

Sorry but that is a crock of crap.

Your argument is that modern generations should pay back with interest, for past generation's mistakes/wrong doings. My argument is that modern generations should learn from those mistakes and ensure that they are not repeated.  

You are asking me to pay for a crime that my forefathers may have committed. 

Are you saying that all modern Germans should pay for the Nazi crimes committed during world war 2? Because this is how it sounds to me.

This attitude sounds all rather vengeful, I wonder if this is the driving factor?  

You are focussing on one group that were persecuted and oppressed, which was disgraceful and should never be repeated, and I agree that some pay back is due. But history shows that this activity has been prevailing in many cultures over thousands of years across the world.

Lets just stop, stop singling people or groups out. Skin colour, race, religion, gender personal preferences... aside, lets just provide equal opportunity for all people.      

11 hours ago, Phi for All said:

How is that fair, equitable, or equal? Isn't that like catching a thief, finding him guilty, and then letting him go?

Fine if the thief is the one doing the crime, lock him up and make him pay, whatever. But you are forcing his family, worse his community to pay for his crime. Nothing stopping asking the community to make a donation towards the victims, hell most would be happy to I'm sure. But forcing them to serve his sentence, reeks of revenge not a solution.    

[dimreepr]

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

You are asking me to pay for a crime that my forefathers may have committed.

That depends, are you benefitting from that crime while the victim's are still suffering?

Seems only fair that you, at least, share some of that privilege.

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Are you saying that all modern Germans should pay for the Nazi crimes committed during world war 2?

Nazi crimes were committed because, the then modern Germans felt they were entitled to the proceeds of their dad's crime.

[Phi for All]

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Sorry but that is a crock of crap.

Your argument is that modern generations should pay back with interest, for past generation's mistakes/wrong doings. My argument is that modern generations should learn from those mistakes and ensure that they are not repeated. 

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.

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

You are asking me to pay for a crime that my forefathers may have committed. 

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. 

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Are you saying that all modern Germans should pay for the Nazi crimes committed during world war 2? Because this is how it sounds to me.

Germany has been paying Holocaust survivors for over 70 years now.

https://apnews.com/article/holocaust-survivor-compensation-fund-germany-0d35aa1cba7756d1b9b6008e9d7841b7

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

This attitude sounds all rather vengeful, I wonder if this is the driving factor?  

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.

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

You are focussing on one group that were persecuted and oppressed, which was disgraceful and should never be repeated, and I agree that some pay back is due. But history shows that this activity has been prevailing in many cultures over thousands of years across the world.

"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?

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Fine if the thief is the one doing the crime, lock him up and make him pay, whatever. But you are forcing his family, worse his community to pay for his crime. Nothing stopping asking the community to make a donation towards the victims, hell most would be happy to I'm sure. But forcing them to serve his sentence, reeks of revenge not a solution.    

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. 

[zapatos]

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

You are asking me to pay for a crime that my forefathers may have committed. 

 

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.

 

[MigL]

You can twist your logic into a pretzel if it makes it more palatable and easier to swallow; you go ahead,  I'm not having any of it.
Racism is pre-judging a person solely on their apparent 'race', with no other discriminators. Surely you must realize, CharonY, that there are plenty of other, actually significant discriminators one must look for in an applicant for an academic position. Saying that things like qualifications and experience are also discriminatory just adds another twist to the pretzel.
I wonder how a Polish or Hungarian white male, who immigrated to America in 1990, would feel when told that he did not get a loan because preferential treatment is being given to PoC, who could not get loans a couple of generations ago, right about the time Soviet tanks were rolling through the streets of his homeland.
I wonder how he would feel when told he has to atone for the wrongs perpetrated by men wearing wooden dentures, who, 250 years ago, wrote a Constitution that started with "We the people ...", but in effect, was actually "We the white males ...", and who had no problem with slavery.
Yet we think of those people as heroes, and cherish an unchainging Constitution.

Eventually there will be push-back, Phi, and in 100 years someone will be discussing this same thing, and trying to re-compense the group of people who have been disenfranchised by this current round of re-compensation and affirmative action.
And that will just tick off another group.
And so on ...

Maybe that's why everybody is shooting each other in the US, and nobody gets along.

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Surely you must realize, CharonY, that there are plenty of other, actually significant discriminators one must look for in an applicant for an academic position. Saying that things like qualifications and experience are also discriminatory just adds another twist to the pretzel.

I mentioned a couple of times before that racism is not a vacuum issue. If the system works the same for everyone, it would not matter that much if some folks for some reason dislike certain races or consider them inferior. It would be an issue akin to social status, accents or other identifiers. The real issue is if there is a system in place that in conjunction with these features leads to uneven outcomes. If folks don't get jobs because of their accents or skin color. And if you look at the system and measure outcomes, like for example life expectancy, lifelong income and so on, we still see that the system sorts according to race, gender and associated lines. 

I have mentioned the example a couple of times already, but there is a system that scores potential organ recipients according to a variety of factors including long-term benefit. If you look at the outcome, you see that black folks are much less likely to be recipients. So we have a (mostly) race-free system, but it is systematically biased against black folks. So what would you think is the right approach? Accept that the worse outcome is just the way it is, or would you change the system? What if the change requires adjustment for race? 

Do you think that in this system preferring a white person is the same as preferring a black person? If so, do how do you come to the conclusion? Would you just ignore the outcome and decide that the process is all that counts?

One big issue with the arguments brought forward is that they seem to imply that all discriminatory barriers are gone and only of historic interest and that none of that has any bearings on the current situation, which is just ignoring the reality of things (not to mention that these things have been brought up again and again in various threads and even acknowledged before apparently being forgotten again).

 

[TheVat]

On 5/31/2023 at 3:24 PM, CharonY said:

also wanted to add that these discussions often read like a failure of semantics and/or logic. Essentially the argument seems to be that racism caused issues, so anything that integrates race would be racist and therefore continue to cause issues.

Indeed.  I came up with this analogy, to clarify the situation for those who think a special assistance is racist:

Imagine a footrace (on a straight linear track) where contestants are lined up on a starting line except for one group, group "B," that is lined up fifty feet behind everyone else.  This has been a long tradition in this footrace.

Spectators, noticing this inequity in the starting line system, call out for the B group to be allowed to move up to the general starting line with eveyone else.

However, the racing commissioner says no, because that would be giving special attention to the B group.  And, the commissioner adds, it's perfectly obvious that the B group are able-bodied and therefore should not receive any special favors.  And, he further notes, there have been several outstanding B runners who have won in the past, so clearly the different starting line is not a problem.

The crowd grows angry.  After some years of struggle, the commissioner and his cronies are finally tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.  And everyone moves to the starting line, a nice straight line perpendicular to the track.

Edited June 1, 2023 by TheVat
minor adj.

[MigL]

7 hours ago, TheVat said:

Spectators, noticing this inequity in the starting line system, call out for the B group to be allowed to move up to the general starting line with eveyone else.

That would be equalizing opportunity.
And is completely justified.

What some here are proposing is starting group B 50 feet ahead of the other runners, to make up for all the previous years of last finishes in the race.
They then call this system 'affirmative action'.
Is that where you were going with your analogy ?

 

8 hours ago, CharonY said:

I have mentioned the example a couple of times already, but there is a system that scores potential organ recipients according to a variety of factors including long-term benefit. If you look at the outcome, you see that black folks are much less likely to be recipients

Without knowing what these factors are, and for  what organs, I really cannot say whether the system is biased against blacks or not.
You and I both know that there are diseases and organ disfunctions which affect different groups disproportionally, and it may be callous ( not racist ) to withold an organ from someone who will 'burn it up after a few years.
Older people also don't get organ transplants after a certain age, as they are saved for younger people who will get fuller use out of scarce organs.
Or is there a systemic bias against older people as well ?

 

I would like a world where all people are treated as people, just as much as the next guy.
My opinion on how we go about realizing this differs from some other members here.

Edited June 2, 2023 by MigL

[Intoscience]

14 hours ago, MigL said:

Eventually there will be push-back, Phi, and in 100 years someone will be discussing this same thing, and trying to re-compense the group of people who have been disenfranchised by this current round of re-compensation and affirmative action.
And that will just tick off another group.
And so on ...

Maybe that's why everybody is shooting each other in the US, and nobody gets along

This is what I'm arguing, and though I see the point made by Phi and other members, I don't agree that affirmative action that goes beyond equal opportunity will solve long term issues. It will just appease one group and then cause disdain for another. 

3 hours ago, MigL said:

What some here are proposing is starting group B 50 feet ahead of the other runners, to make up for all the previous years of last finishes in the race.
They then call this system 'affirmative action'.

 

3 hours ago, MigL said:

I would like a world where all people are treated as people, just as much as the next guy.
My opinion on how we go about realizing this differs from some other members here

At some point the only way to achieve this is by stopping and saying enough is enough, lets stop this pinball game and smooth it out. Someone somewhere will have suffered more than others, there's no way around it. But, we can stop now so that now and future generations suffer no more and that all are treated equal. 

Tit for tat is not an affirmative action, its a game of revenge that never really results in success.

  

17 hours ago, zapatos said:

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.

I don't disagree, though I would say its the government system that presides not the people who originally developed it. The current government should recognise and amend mistakes by changing the system accordingly. But changes should be made to smooth out the line.  

18 hours ago, Phi for All said:

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

Actually, then we agree because this is what I'm arguing. I'm happy to pay compensation, but that payment should come at a cost to all not to one specific group. Though predominantly in western culture it was white people oppressing and slaving black people, it was not exclusive to. History shows many cultures in many countries, have conducted some sort of oppression, slavery and worse. All of modern society, all members of this society should pay the compensation to all those that have suffered in the past. Then all systems, across all cultures, should have a policy of equal opportunity no more no less.  

Also, from experience (my partner's family who are black, and by the way she totally agrees on this), in the society which we live, the most racial people tend to be black people. All of the racial tension between her family and mine originates from her family. This embarrasses her and upsets her deeply. 

Lets just stop and reset.     

[Intoscience]

21 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That depends, are you benefitting from that crime while the victim's are still suffering?

Seems only fair that you, at least, share some of that privilege

Ah... I see where you are going with this. You are basically saying I'm the beneficiary of the crimes of my forefathers.  So now I should payback my gain. Interesting approach, one could apply this logic to all the activities of all our ancestors including invasions and conquering of countries etc... how much do you pay and where do you stop?

Happy to do that if I know about and directly understand the value of (if any) my gain from the crime. Though one could argue that my payment is losing my family member to the jail he is sent to, or the embarrassment of, or stigma of, or the prejudice against me for being related to a criminal...  

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

So now I should payback my gain. Interesting approach, one could apply this logic to all the activities of all our ancestors including invasions and conquering of countries etc... how much do you pay and where do you stop?

Not what I said.

"Seems only fair that you, at least, share some of that privilege".

Something like, you suffer a slight inconvenience in your level of comfort, so that the current victims of said crime, suffer a little less.

By crime I mean pretty much any/every crime committed by, or on behalf of, a head of state, in the last 4,000 year's. 

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

Happy to do that if I know about and directly understand the value of (if any) my gain from the crime. Though one could argue that my payment is losing my family member to the jail he is sent to, or the embarrassment of, or stigma of, or the prejudice against me for being related to a criminal... 

The moral definition of criminal is nebulous, it depends on how much you want need it; and how many convincing excuses you can come up with, that show why your want is actually a need... 😉

Edited June 2, 2023 by dimreepr

[Phi for All]

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Actually, then we agree because this is what I'm arguing. I'm happy to pay compensation, but that payment should come at a cost to all not to one specific group.

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.

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

At some point the only way to achieve this is by stopping and saying enough is enough, lets stop this pinball game and smooth it out.

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?"

[TheVat]

8 hours ago, MigL said:

That would be equalizing opportunity.
And is completely justified.

What some here are proposing is starting group B 50 feet ahead of the other runners, to make up for all the previous years of last finishes in the race.
They then call this system 'affirmative action'.
Is that where you were going with your analogy ?

 

My analogy was simpler.  Generations of discrimination make it as if people are starting 50 feet behind everyone else.  It was a metaphor. Moving the B group ahead, though it seems like favoritism, just gets them to the starting line along with everyone else.  Reparations, e.g. like the one proposed to give families a college fund for their children, don't give the children a special advantage once they're in college, they simply get them TO college in the first place.

Will some middle class black families get money they don't need?  Quite possible, and so what?  I have a good IRA  and don't really need Social Security checks, but I receive them anyway.  I recognize that many older folks really depend on SS payments, and am glad no one's dismantled the system because it distributes benefits too generally.  And I can (as black middle class families may do) use my SS payments to help my children build wealth, say pursue homeowning dreams much harder to reach for their generation.

[CharonY]

On 6/1/2023 at 11:45 PM, MigL said:

That would be equalizing opportunity.
And is completely justified.

What some here are proposing is starting group B 50 feet ahead of the other runners, to make up for all the previous years of last finishes in the race.

You are missing the point that the race is still ongoing and folks still deal with running from behind. Based on your argument of "equal outcome" it seems to me that you deem the situation being equalized but at the same time you dismiss outcomes as a measure. Perhaps to address the issue, the idea of equity is not that everyone achieves exactly the same outcome. Rather, the idea is that the distribution of outcomes is going to be at least comparable between groups. Now, if you say we should not distinguish based on racial features, yet racial groups have worse outcomes still, what would be the reason if not racialized issues with the system?

On 6/1/2023 at 11:45 PM, MigL said:

Without knowing what these factors are, and for  what organs, I really cannot say whether the system is biased against blacks or not.

You and I both know that there are diseases and organ disfunctions which affect different groups disproportionally, and it may be callous ( not racist ) to withold an organ from someone who will 'burn it up after a few years.

This goes actually to the above, there is an assumption that unequal outcomes are not a caused by a bias in the system, but because something inherent to a particular group. And yes, age is a discriminator for organ donation, which implies that you are alright with certain forms of discrimination. So if you are alright with using such information to bias against folks, why not use the same to benefit certain folks?

(I can follow up with examples of racial bias in medicine and the systemic issues there in a bit, if there is interest, but I think for this discussion TheVat's example is easier to follow.

[Intoscience]

On 6/2/2023 at 2:22 PM, Phi for All said:

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?"

Ok I see your point, our arguments are aligning a little now. I'm a firm believer in people paying theirs dues, so no argument there.

However, I was interpreting your argument as (based on your analogy), a bully is stealing your child's lunch money and because the said bully is from a specific group all the people in that group must be bullies so they should all be punished and pay for the bully's crime.

.    

On 6/2/2023 at 12:13 PM, dimreepr said:

Something like, you suffer a slight inconvenience in your level of comfort, so that the current victims of said crime, suffer a little less

I'm always confused by your comments.

I just see your argument as, your privilege is a result of crimes committed by your ancestors, therefore you should pay for those crimes. 

If this is your point then all modern people should pay for their ancestor's crimes then? So if we all pay who do we pay?

I'm saying rather than tit for tat, lets just learn from our ancestor's mistakes and just stop. This may seem unfair, and maybe it is but when do you draw then line? 

On 6/2/2023 at 2:22 PM, Phi for All said:

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

Yet the constitution built by the bullies and oppressors is held in such high esteem in the US even today. Those people are long gone, dead and buried.  

Edited June 5, 2023 by Intoscience
spelling

[dimreepr]

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I'm always confused by your comments.

I just see your argument as, your privilege is a result of crimes committed by your ancestors, therefore you should pay for those crimes. 

If this is your point then all modern people should pay for their ancestor's crimes then? So if we all pay who do we pay?

I'm saying rather than tit for tat, lets just learn from our ancestor's mistakes and just stop. This may seem unfair, and maybe it is but when do you draw then line? 

It was meant to make you think about the privilege you have and where it comes from; for instance, I'm guessing, from your profile and posting history, that you're a homeowner; who did you buy it off since property is theft. If you go back far enough, the original owner was an ax wielding maniac who planted a flag in the mud and said "this is my bit", and planted the ax between the eye's of any decenter.

And if you're lucky enough to have a second home, that a squatter has planted his flag in, you'll be the first to reach for the metaphorical ax.

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Yet the constitution built inspired by the bullies and oppressors, built by those who resisted, is held in such high esteem in the US even today, because it's worthy aspirations. Those people are long gone, dead and buried. much admired. 

FTFY

[Jez]

Not really wanting to deep dive on this sort of topic but much of the discussions on racism strike me as fake and constructed means to create division which doesn't literally exist.

The question then, really, is who and why is division being sought?

I mean "even if" there was a person in the world that was the same colour as a white board, what on earth is the connection between objects just because they are the same colour?!?

Worse still is that literally no-one is the colour of a white-board!

Calling anyone 'white' or 'black' seems wholly racist from the get-go. We are all the same colour, melatonin, some are more coloured and some are less coloured. I actually resent being called white, I am not white. Just, less coloured.

The only discriminatory colouration that can be pointed out is against ginger people, who have a different pigment making the red, pheomelanin. I mean they are called red heads but it's not really red either.

I strongly believe that the only reason racism exists is because it's talked about. Stop pointing out the distinction and no-one will see it any more.

It'd be like discussing freckles, or dimples, or a pointy chin.

Maybe I should have a go and point out how people are different if they have a 'V' or 'U' shaped intertragic notch? I bet most people would need to look up what that even is, but once you know what it is, you'll be looking at people trying to work out 'if they are like you'!! 🤣 What a lot of nonsense.

 

 

[dimreepr]

13 minutes ago, Jez said:

Maybe I should have a go and point out how people are different if they have a 'V' or 'U' shaped intertragic notch? I bet most people would need to look up what that even is, but once you know what it is, you'll be looking at people trying to work out 'if they are like you'!! 🤣 What a lot of nonsense

Maybe you should read the thread, before you, wrongly, reduce it to nensense... 😉

[Intoscience]

59 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It was meant to make you think about the privilege you have and where it comes from; for instance, I'm guessing, from your profile and posting history, that you're a homeowner; who did you buy it off since property is theft. If you go back far enough, the original owner was an ax wielding maniac who planted a flag in the mud and said "this is my bit", and planted the ax between the eye's of any decenter.

And if you're lucky enough to have a second home, that a squatter has planted his flag in, you'll be the first to reach for the metaphorical ax.

I am a homeowner, I bought the property from my parents who bought it from my father's parents who bought it from their parents who sought permission to build a house originally on unclaimed land next to a railway as my great grand parents where the local station keepers. So there is definitely some family heritage involved.  However you are just reiterating my point, that all modern people are the beneficiaries of some gain by some means sought by our ancestors that is not agreeable. Its just that some may be more recent and more on topic than others. 

[Genady]

8 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

all modern people are the beneficiaries of some gain by some means sought by our ancestors that is not agreeable

I can't agree with this generalization. All? My ancestors? Maybe, but I can't find it.

[Intoscience]

45 minutes ago, Jez said:

I strongly believe that the only reason racism exists is because it's talked about. Stop pointing out the distinction and no-one will see it any more.

It'd be like discussing freckles, or dimples, or a pointy chin

Racism in the context of this thread came about mainly due to the slave trade. People with darker skin than Western Europeans settlers were deemed to be inferior and thus valued less, so oppressed with reduced human rights. They where treated appallingly, often worse than animals. 

The problem is not around pointing out the distinction, but rather the negative connotations of it. No different than pointing out that a person is fat, thin, tall, short, old , young, bright, slow... etc. What we need to stop doing is making any distinctions as a negative or rather one which "de-values" a person. We are all different, but should be treated all the same - equally.     

6 minutes ago, Genady said:

I can't agree with this generalization. All? My ancestors? Maybe, but I can't find it.

This is what dimreeper is suggesting, yes all, you are here thus your linage has survived, which most probably means that at least one of your ancestors did something to aid that survival which would not be agreeable by modern day standards. This is what dim is saying and you should pay yours and your forefather's dues . 

Edited June 5, 2023 by Intoscience
spelling

[Genady]

4 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

your linage has survived, which most probably means that at least one of your ancestors did something to aid that survival which would not be agreeable by modern day standards. This is what dim is saying

I thought that you were saying this. Anyway, I think this generalization is wrong. There are many paths to survival.

[dimreepr]

17 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

However you are just reiterating my point, that all modern people are the beneficiaries of some gain by some means sought by our ancestors that is not agreeable.

No, not all and that's the point; so, maybe you turn a blind eye to the squatter in your second home, it's not like it's your favourite and they're already suffering... From not having an ax to weild...