-
@Siam so unless you help everyone at the same time you shouldn’t help anyone? This is the “silver bullet” attitude i was talking about
It’s a BS argument to avoid doing anything because someone will always find a “yeah but how about this”
Saying one group of people deserves something doesn’t mean another doesn’t also
Using the specific theme of this thread, do we think the Jewish people have been treated as poorly as people of colour in America? We’re talking about actions the US government could/have taken aren’t we so we should limit it to the US
-
@Kiwiwomble agreed. So how about we treat everybody as individuals and assess each as individuals and provide resources and opportunities from there, completely irrespective of immutable characteristics? e.g. race, sex, orientation, history etc. No groups, just individual people.
-
@Siam I have already conceded that is obviously the “best” way to do it
The comment you’ve picked out is that start of a convo
But people are just playing dumb if they can’t see that the best way to fix things is infinitely harder than a much more flawed “group” approach, and easy to talk about waiting and doing it “right” when we we might not be the ones needing the help
-
@Kiwiwomble Hasn't the US been helping the Jewish nation since 1947, in backing it up against it's Arab neighbours?
-
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
@canefan that might have been meant for siam
I was just interjecting to say something. This is the way (of the Fern).
-
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
@Siam I have already conceded that is obviously the “best” way to do it
The comment you’ve picked out is that start of a convo
But people are just playing dumb if they can’t see that the best way to fix things is infinitely harder than a much more flawed “group” approach, and easy to talk about waiting and doing it “right” when we we might not be the ones needing the help
I can appreciate the desire and need to do something useful and helpful to address the obvious inequalities staring us in the face seemingly everyday.
I'd rather sway away from a solution with subjective assessment of an individual by the arbitrary group he's in, as it's core principle.
We must have better definitions for those we wish to help. The solution must be applied on today's circumstances and universally cater for all who need it. It can't be skin colour because we'll just be racist to poor white people instead of poor black people.
If anything the solutions should be based around income and wealth differences, not skin colour ones.
The goal is to provide all with lives of equal opportunities, a high standard of outcomes, all at the expense of no one in particular, right?
The social engineering like proposition 16 are doomed to fail (designed to fail actually), because they never have definitions. Every single moving part comes down to someone's interpretation. No variables are fixed with group identity politics - every decision needs an arbiter. The whole system needs people in charge of it's application. That's enticing to bad faith actors.
E.g. proposition 16. Who does this apply to?
How black? Skin colour? Genetic percentage? Who gets left out of the opportunity?
Historical oppression? Just American slaves? Kurds allowed? How many years back? All ancestors of slaves?I'm saying don't even ever give the grouping of people in 2021 by race or skin colour any oxygen as a means to assess government help for it's citizens.
Never group by characteristics you were born with. Something no one can control. That's not how public policy should be drafted.
Assess by opportunities and income, then be fair dinkum about fixing them.
I agree it's clear where the problem areas are, and a genuine reluctance for those with the financial resources to mend things has also been stark. Yes something needs to be done but the foundations for deciding who needs help must be rational.
In 2021 skin colour is the least interesting and revealing thing about a person. Don't continue to make it the difference between a good life and a shit life, again.
-
When somebody says their priority is this, it means that if they strike two things in the same situation but only have resource to help one, they will help this one.
Thus if your small business is struggling and it's white man owned, it won't get as much help due to racial and sex profiling. Which is what we've spent the last 100 years hearing is a very bad thing.
I certainly don't agree with what happened on Capitol Hill & Trumps' comments around it, but if you look at the above, it does add some context to what they were trying to achieve, doesn't it?
-
@Siam said in US Politics:
@MajorRage How great would it have been if Biden made a point of "every suffering American" instead of deliberately including and thus omitting particular arbitrary groups?
(sigh...)Buying votes at a time when he doesn't need to buy votes as the election is already done?
Either that or he will genuinely avenue public funds away from white people.
-
@Siam said in US Politics:
By the way, the whole black people's plight in modern America goes nowhere until the prison industry is gutted and overhauled.
Believe no solution until that is included and talked about often.
I don't know enough about that. Got an links (That aren't 40 min vids ) you can share ...
-
@canefan said in US Politics:
@Kiwiwomble Hasn't the US been helping the Jewish nation since 1947, in backing it up against it's Arab neighbours?
Not sure of the relevance/equivalence.
You could say that the US has poured billions of $$ of aid into sub-saharan African countries over the same period. Seems as relevant.
-
The great man has spoken
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew you don't think there is any place for "righting" past wrongs? giving a leg up to those that may be starting from a less fortunate position because of the wrong done to previous generations of their family?
No. For the same reason that poor people in Spain and Portugal shouldn't expect a handout from North African countries for all the white slavery that went on 150 years ago. It's simply unworkable.
I'm massively in favour of helping people from disadvantaged groups realise their potential - regardless of race. It's pretty dumb for a country to throw that potential on the scrapheap. In the US that help would inevitably (but not always) be focussed on areas with high black populations.
(As an aside, the UK is taking a similar approach, but the groups mainly being targeted are white working class, as BAME people out-perform their white cohorts)
But doing this will mean reallocation of resources from better-off areas to poorer areas, at least initially. And the cynic in me thinks that those advocating equality and diversity are all in favour - as long as it doesn't impact them much.
Right past wrongs by compensation is a mug's game. At the risk of being labelled reductive, it boils down to those without sin casting the first stone.
I entirely agree with @siam and @Victor-Meldrew that the onus ought to be on trying to ensure equality of opportunity for ALL. For me that is about education, both the teaching itself, and the facilitation of the access thereto for poorer types.
A great example: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/17/black-panther-party-oakland-free-breakfast-50th-anniversary
-
@Siam said in US Politics:
By the way, the whole black people's plight in modern America goes nowhere until the prison industry is gutted and overhauled.
Believe no solution until that is included and talked about often.
No surprise you think that. Any well informed links to background?
-
@Siam said in US Politics:
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
@Siam I have already conceded that is obviously the “best” way to do it
The comment you’ve picked out is that start of a convo
But people are just playing dumb if they can’t see that the best way to fix things is infinitely harder than a much more flawed “group” approach, and easy to talk about waiting and doing it “right” when we we might not be the ones needing the help
I can appreciate the desire and need to do something useful and helpful to address the obvious inequalities staring us in the face seemingly everyday.
I'd rather sway away from a solution with subjective assessment of an individual by the arbitrary group he's in, as it's core principle.
We must have better definitions for those we wish to help. The solution must be applied on today's circumstances and universally cater for all who need it. It can't be skin colour because we'll just be racist to poor white people instead of poor black people.
If anything the solutions should be based around income and wealth differences, not skin colour ones.
The goal is to provide all with lives of equal opportunities, a high standard of outcomes, all at the expense of no one in particular, right?
The social engineering like proposition 16 are doomed to fail (designed to fail actually), because they never have definitions. Every single moving part comes down to someone's interpretation. No variables are fixed with group identity politics - every decision needs an arbiter. The whole system needs people in charge of it's application. That's enticing to bad faith actors.
E.g. proposition 16. Who does this apply to?
How black? Skin colour? Genetic percentage? Who gets left out of the opportunity?
Historical oppression? Just American slaves? Kurds allowed? How many years back? All ancestors of slaves?I'm saying don't even ever give the grouping of people in 2021 by race or skin colour any oxygen as a means to assess government help for it's citizens.
Never group by characteristics you were born with. Something no one can control. That's not how public policy should be drafted.
Assess by opportunities and income, then be fair dinkum about fixing them.
I agree it's clear where the problem areas are, and a genuine reluctance for those with the financial resources to mend things has also been stark. Yes something needs to be done but the foundations for deciding who needs help must be rational.
In 2021 skin colour is the least interesting and revealing thing about a person. Don't continue to make it the difference between a good life and a shit life, again.
Superb post.
-
@nostrildamus said in US Politics:
Not the only ones going after ethnic votes:
Big difference between producing policies which garner support in specific groups - as both Trump & Biden did - and deliberately excluding people from government support because of their skin colour - as Biden and Harris appear to want to do.
-
@pakman said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew you don't think there is any place for "righting" past wrongs? giving a leg up to those that may be starting from a less fortunate position because of the wrong done to previous generations of their family?
No. For the same reason that poor people in Spain and Portugal shouldn't expect a handout from North African countries for all the white slavery that went on 150 years ago. It's simply unworkable.
I'm massively in favour of helping people from disadvantaged groups realise their potential - regardless of race. It's pretty dumb for a country to throw that potential on the scrapheap. In the US that help would inevitably (but not always) be focussed on areas with high black populations.
(As an aside, the UK is taking a similar approach, but the groups mainly being targeted are white working class, as BAME people out-perform their white cohorts)
But doing this will mean reallocation of resources from better-off areas to poorer areas, at least initially. And the cynic in me thinks that those advocating equality and diversity are all in favour - as long as it doesn't impact them much.
Right past wrongs by compensation is a mug's game. At the risk of being labelled reductive, it boils down to those without sin casting the first stone.
I entirely agree with @Victor-Meldrew that the onus ought to be on trying to ensure equality of opportunity for ALL. For me that is about education, both the teaching itself, and the facilitation of the access thereto for poorer types.
A great example: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/17/black-panther-party-oakland-free-breakfast-50th-anniversary
The thing that's annoying is that it's piss easy to make huge efforts to fund public money towards these communities without saying so.
Using Biden's small business analogy, why not just say assistance will be offered to small businesses in areas with lower wealth etc etc. So if by the way things are, this adds more cash towards the aimed communities, then people should accept this without too much bother.
Instead, if you say we are targeting non-white communities, then the struggling white business owners start to get pissy. And start to get noisy. And because USA is majority white, with a larger share of funds with white people (note, no racism here - just facts), they start to influence others in the same vain. Realityy is that due to twitter and like, there are movements for everything. Literally everything. A flat earth society FFS. So when you use divisive language, people who are put out, can and will immediately find others in same situation ... and next thing you know Cool Hand Luke / Civil War speech starts to be become relevant again:
What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men.
US Politics