Trausti
Illuminator
So the individual doesn't matter at all? It's okay to just judge and treat people, good or bad, by their skin color? That's okay with you?
Last edited:
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Split Thread Diversity Equity and Inclusion and merit in employment etc
- Thread starter jt512
- Start date
jt512
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2011
- Messages
- 5,565
Arth has trouble with the concept that history is, by definition, in the past.
Last edited:
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Are you saying that nobody should take history into account when evaluating the present?
jt512
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2011
- Messages
- 5,565
I'm saying that present discrimination is not justified by past discrimination.
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
There you are again, framing it as "discrimination".
Past discrimination justifies extra efforts to restore balance in the present.
jt512
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2011
- Messages
- 5,565
Because it is.
No, Arth. Because the people who are paying in the presence aren't the ones who did the discrimination in the past, and the people who are getting the benefit in the present aren't the ones who were discriminated against in the past. The sons are not responsible for the sins of their fathers. Not in any society I want to live in, anyway.
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
Only in the Trumpian conservative alt-right playbook.
So, I'm Australian of English descent from the earliest days of colonisation (I have ancestors who were on the First and the Third Fleets). My ancestors systematically destroyed the indigenous culture, stole children from their parents to try and make them more "European", outright murdered hundreds of thousands of them in organised raids and ambushes, but it's now all okay and nobody has to do anything about the consequences of these actions, because the people who actually did them are all dead? Do we bear zero responsibility for our forebears putting these people, these human beings, into the poorest and most destitute state they live in now, their lives and their culture - which goes back 40,000 years by the way - in tatters? This status quo is okay, to you, because nobody living bears responsibility for it?
That's ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up, man. That's well and truly ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up.
The past is the past and what happened then cannot be changed. But we can do things now to make up for it. I cannot take responsibility for the actions of my ancestors, but I can and should take responsibility for fixing the truly ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up mess they left behind.
And this, to you, is discrimination. Riley Bishop, a white banker living in Vaucluse, should get equal treatment to Jampijinpa Jangala, an unemployed indigenous man living in Kalkarindji, because to do otherwise would be discrimination.
There's an Australian phrase that is very appropriate here:
Yeah nah ◊◊◊◊ off, ◊◊◊◊.
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,821
Last edited:
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
The important part of recognizing history is that of recognizing its hold on our nightmares and myths, thereby on our identity and instinct of preservation, and thus the standards we set, or fail to set, for ourselves. It is not about guilt for the past, but that of willful ignorance leading to new or ongoing accountability.
Thus, settler colonialism becomes noble, justified post-hoc by its material results. Lands not tilled in the West Bank, past a short period, revert to Israeli state ownership. Note: Not to the PA, as should be the case were the law of less nefarious intent. Past victimhood and trauma, handed down generations after the Holocaust (incessantly cited in the news media now), justifies revenge in spades, visiting the past upon new victims.
Thus, competing in a rigged game is normalized and tucked away, such as widely disparate access to quality education, ability or not to accumulate generational wealth owing to home ownership, or being a small nation in a highly industrialized world whose economies of scale cannot be overcome by any other means than a modest and targeted tariff (◊◊◊◊ you, Donald).
Efforts to remedy the invisible are therefore seen and decried as oppressive. That's out of ignorance and dereliction of moral duty, personal and public.
Thus, settler colonialism becomes noble, justified post-hoc by its material results. Lands not tilled in the West Bank, past a short period, revert to Israeli state ownership. Note: Not to the PA, as should be the case were the law of less nefarious intent. Past victimhood and trauma, handed down generations after the Holocaust (incessantly cited in the news media now), justifies revenge in spades, visiting the past upon new victims.
Thus, competing in a rigged game is normalized and tucked away, such as widely disparate access to quality education, ability or not to accumulate generational wealth owing to home ownership, or being a small nation in a highly industrialized world whose economies of scale cannot be overcome by any other means than a modest and targeted tariff (◊◊◊◊ you, Donald).
Efforts to remedy the invisible are therefore seen and decried as oppressive. That's out of ignorance and dereliction of moral duty, personal and public.
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,821
Exactly. It’s like the opposite of the power that made you think an obvious grifter and idiot would be good for the economy.
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,821
Trump voters in this thread denying that anything can be learned from history after their boy crashed the economy for the second time is just *chef’s kiss*.
Last edited:
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Mmm. The supporters of "I don't take responsibility at all" showing a bit more of the actual reasons why they're so happy to support that guy.
Nevermind, of course, that statistically speaking, they're fairly certainly beneficiaries of the results of the exploitation, dirty deeds, and sometimes outright criminal actions that caused the seriously massive racial wealth gap in the US. They likely worked hard for what they have, after all, and that apparently means that they can happily ignore everything else in play if they don't like it! How dare anyone suggest otherwise? "Fair" is only "fair" if it benefits them, after all.
Nevermind, of course, that statistically speaking, they're fairly certainly beneficiaries of the results of the exploitation, dirty deeds, and sometimes outright criminal actions that caused the seriously massive racial wealth gap in the US. They likely worked hard for what they have, after all, and that apparently means that they can happily ignore everything else in play if they don't like it! How dare anyone suggest otherwise? "Fair" is only "fair" if it benefits them, after all.
Last edited:
Trausti
Illuminator
So no answer? You're okay with discrimnation so long as its against people with skin color you don't like?
Trausti
Illuminator
Yes. Let's learn from history. Punishing a whole group of people because you think their ancestors did bad things is wrong. Or are all Jews born guilty for killing Jesus?
Trausti
Illuminator
jt512
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2011
- Messages
- 5,565
You did not put anybody alive today in poverty, and neither did your ancestors. Society has a responsibility to provide equal opportunity for all. That should be what we strive for.
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
That doesn't work quite like you wish it did. If we're going by popular Republican claims, it can be said to be much the opposite from how you're trying to use it, no less. Democrats are continually treated as if they're the same as they were during the Civil War and before the Republican Southern Strategy guided those parts of the party into the Republican fold? Gotta hold the Democrats of today responsible for that time period, no matter how absurd! Other people are not held responsible for what they themselves are doing today? You have seen the vranyo being employed when it comes to Trump and co to prevent him from being held responsible for his actions.
Nor, for that matter, is it much of an argument against the point I made. As jt512 said right after you, no less -
On that, jt512 and I can agree. What is necessary to reach and maintain equal opportunity may involve disagreement, of course. You and jt512 may like to pretend that equal opportunity should completely ignore relevant things that you think would either disadvantage you or that you don't like. With you, Trausti, especially, it comes across much like those old "equal rights" arguments against gay marriage. "I'm for equal rights! Gay men are allowed to marry women just as much as straight men are and are forbidden from marrying men just as much as straight men are!" That argument was disingenuous, to say the least. Letter over spirit. I'm not so keen on ignoring things relevant to having actually meaningful equal opportunity on the other hand, even if it means that I don't get to enjoy as much of an implicit advantage.
Last edited:
Trausti
Illuminator
Are you tilting at windmills? Doesn't matter Democrat/Republican/Blue Team/Red Team. Don't justify discrimination against someone because you think a person who might have looked like them did something bad in the past. Everyone has ancestors who did bad things. Should the children of convicted criminals be made to atone for the acts of their fathers? or grandfathers? or great-grandfathers?
Last edited:
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,821
The discrimination and punishment you're referring to exists only in your head, right next to where it seemed like a good idea to vote for crashing the economy and killing children with measles.
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
First, rightly or wrongly, generational debt actually is a thing, even if most debts aren't passed on.
Second, the government can be reasonably held responsible for a significant portion of what wrongs were done. That's categorically different than trying to pretend that it's just some person's ancestor acting badly. Naturally, that happened in concert with plenty of white people reaping the benefits.
Third, describing what is in play as atoning for the acts of their predecessors is rather questionable. Scenario - white farmer murders a neighboring black farmer, gets away with it scot-free, and buys his murdered neighbor's farm super cheap after colluding with local government officials. Time goes by and his son inherits the larger farm. Going by your argument, nothing at all is allowed be done to rectify the injustice once the son has inherited the larger farm, much of which was gained extremely unjustly.
Last edited: