Victim Culture

1356718

Comments

  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Presumably, judging by his banana example, Russ thinks that any means-tested benefits are unequal formal rights.

    Means-tested benefits are a perverse incentive.

    But a philanthropic individual, charitable foundation or government can adopt such a policy if they so choose.

    My objection is only at the point where you assert such benefits as a right rather than a custom.
    I personally lean towards the idea that benefits shouldn't be means-tested and should be replaced by a universal basic income. But I suspect Russ doesn't.

    I lean towards a system which guarantees everyone the basic necessities in exchange for a few hours per week of community service appropriate to their capabilities. But while I would see that as a good thing, it's not a moral right.

    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    In an episode of The West Wing, an argument for compensation was advanced on behalf of the descendants of slaves.

    It isn't going to happen. But I wondered if Russ thought it was a victim culture argument.

    Don't think it is.

    It attempts objective reasoning as to what the group in question deserve rather than allowing them to define what it is they deserve.

    It doesn't place the group in question above criticism, doesn't make out they're saints and martyrs.

    And it defines a group in terms of the characteristics (in this case ancestry) of the individual. Rather than asserting a group-identity which attributes group characteristics of victimhood to all individuals therein.

    So no, not the same thing.
  • [url="Russ:"]Russ:[/url] And it defines a group in terms of the characteristics (in this case ancestry) of the individual. Rather than asserting a group-identity which attributes group characteristics of victimhood to all individuals therein.

    Your reference 'ancestry', Russ, raises an interesting problem by no means peculiar to your post, namely: In reference to any given individual what proportion of his/her ancestry was enslaved? How would it be calculated? Would lineage be traced through the male or female line? Would any compensation be on a sliding scale of slaveness? For compensation based on colour, what would be the criteria for determining colour? Would the degree of colour be recognised in the scheme? And so on..........
  • First Russ is against victims defining their victimhood, and now he demands it. So confusing.
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    I think the concepts of restitution, of redressing the balance, are part of a general understanding of what is fair. You even get some of that from the OT concept of Jubilee - a 50 year redistribution of land, forgiving of debts and freeing indentured servants (slaves) from their obligations to masters. {Italics mine)

    Dave W

    My reference to Jubilee was actually secondary and I don't think the redressing of the balance described in the Jubilee scriptures reads across all that well into our current culture.

    But I think the concepts, that fairness can and does involve redressing the balance and making restitution to those who have been treated unfairly, do transcend cultures.
    I wouldn't be surprised if those concepts are broadly shared, but the Jubilee seems to be a very poor example. Emancipation isn't restitution - that's kind of the whole point of those who argue for reparations for American slavery. Forgiveness of debts is hardly fair or redressing a balance, unless you're assuming all debts are necessarily oppressive. And I don't think the length of the 50 year interval can be dismissed as a minor detail; plenty of people would have spent their entire lives without ever benefiting from a Jubilee, and you know what they say about justice delayed.

    That's not to say you can't find expressions of a desire for fairness and balance in the OT - but I think Leviticus 24 fits that description better than Leviticus 25.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    There are systematic forms of oppression. Those have built up over centuries.

    You can't hope to treat the symptoms without addressing the underlying issues.

    This.

    I have recently been studying a short course on the subject of "Root Cause Analysis". There are a number of techniques described for finding root causes and then identifying a solution for the problem (or problems) that have made the analysis necessary. The principle is that you look, as the title says, for the Root cause, on the basis that if that is identified and a remedy put in place for that then the problem is more likely to be solved. Some cause-effect chains are neat, singular and linear while others are systemic with many causes and effects.
    Care is needed when applying remedies, eg to eliminate harmful side-effects, but if you don't address root causes, you will fforever be applying sticking plasters over a wound that needs stitches. The high rate of imprisonment of young Black American men is a sticking plaster in my opinion, and solves nothing.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Making restitution is associated with compensation for previous injustices. Who pays, how much, and what timescales should be applied to previous injustices? These are secondary factors that people will argue about. But they do not affect the sense that many of us have that making restitution is a right and good thing to do.

    I think there's an interesting discussion to be had about whether and to what extent debts (such the owing of compensation for wrongs committed) are heritable. What responsibility has the son for the sins of the father ?

    But in order for that discussion to be fruitful, we have to first reject the notion that the answer depends on the victim-group-status of those involved. If there is a moral entitlement to restitution, it doesn't depend on which of the two parties has greater wealth and power, or which is from the dominant and which the minority ethnic group.

    You can't have a meaningful debate about what principles apply with someone whose principle is to take sides on any question depending on their level of victim-sympathy for the particular parties involved in any example.
  • Soror MagnaSoror Magna Shipmate
    edited September 2018
    Russ wrote: »
    If there is a moral entitlement to restitution, it doesn't depend on which of the two parties has greater wealth and power, or which is from the dominant and which the minority ethnic group. ...

    So who are these wealthy, powerful people whom you believe are entitled to restitution from poor, weak people? What "dominant" groups in society are entitled to restitution from minority groups?

    Historically, some slave-holders were compensated for their losses when slavery was abolished. Perhaps you can provide a less cringe-inducing example of your even-handed approach towards restitution.








  • Russ wrote: »
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Making restitution is associated with compensation for previous injustices. Who pays, how much, and what timescales should be applied to previous injustices? These are secondary factors that people will argue about. But they do not affect the sense that many of us have that making restitution is a right and good thing to do.

    I think there's an interesting discussion to be had about whether and to what extent debts (such the owing of compensation for wrongs committed) are heritable. What responsibility has the son for the sins of the father ?

    But in order for that discussion to be fruitful, we have to first reject the notion that the answer depends on the victim-group-status of those involved. If there is a moral entitlement to restitution, it doesn't depend on which of the two parties has greater wealth and power, or which is from the dominant and which the minority ethnic group.

    You can't have a meaningful debate about what principles apply with someone whose principle is to take sides on any question depending on their level of victim-sympathy for the particular parties involved in any example.

    You can't have a meaningful debate with someone who insists on addressing a cartoon version of your positions rather than the actual position...
  • So who are these wealthy, powerful people whom you believe are entitled to restitution from poor, weak people?

    Well, if you take a purely race-based approach to the slavery issue we've been talking about then you're saying that this person should be entitled to restitution from this one.
  • It must be comforting to know that the existence of poor white people proves there's no such thing as white privilege and the existence of rich black people proves there's no more racism.

    In reality, if a trigger-happy cop doesn't recognize Mr. Smith, he's in as much danger as any other black American. If you clean and dress up Mr. P. Handler, he can sit in Starbucks all day for the price of a tall brewed coffee.
  • It must be comforting to know that the existence of poor white people proves there's no such thing as white privilege and the existence of rich black people proves there's no more racism.

    Not what I said, and a complete non-sequitur given the context.

    You asked who the wealthy, powerful people that would be entitled to restitution from poor, weak people are, with the clear implication that no such people exist. I gave an example of a wealthy, powerful person who many on this thread would claim - thanks to his skin colour - is owed restitution by white people, the latter group including plenty of poor, weak people such as the one in the linked photograph.

    A direct answer to a direct question.

    And yet, rather than accept that answer and maybe think about it a little, you went off on a bizarre rant about how it apparently denies the existence of racism altogether. One can only wonder where such aggressive defensiveness comes from.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    edited September 2018
    Well, if you take a purely race-based approach to the slavery issue we've been talking about then you're saying that this person should be entitled to restitution from this one.

    The homeless white guy would not be paying a penny, as reparations money would come from taxes,* which he doesn't pay. I don't know how crafty Will Smith's tax preparer is, but if Smith is paying his fair share of taxes, he might pay more in taxes in a year than he would collect in reparations.

    *That's how the reparations to interned Japanese Americans were funded, and I can't think of another way to do it.
  • Ruth wrote: »
    The homeless white guy would not be paying a penny, as reparations money would come from taxes,* which he doesn't pay. I don't know how crafty Will Smith's tax preparer is, but if Smith is paying his fair share of taxes, he might pay more in taxes in a year than he would collect in reparations.

    *That's how the reparations to interned Japanese Americans were funded, and I can't think of another way to do it

    As noted previously, MtM considers "white people" and "the U.S. Government" to be more or less interchangeable terms, which is in itself kind of telling.

    It should be noted that Mr. Smith is, rather famously, from West Philadelphia ("born and raised"). He was, in fact, born the same year as the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968) was passed. Prior to this the FHA, the federal underwriter for most home mortgages in the U.S., would not underwrite mortgages in "bad" neighborhoods, and anywhere black people lived was automatically considered a "bad" neighborhood. Black people had to rely on "contract buying", a kind of rent-to-own system that combined the all the disadvantages of renting with all the drawbacks of home ownership. Mr. Smith's father was a veteran and might have been eligible for a home loan through the G.I. Bill but, in a catch-22 worthy of the U.S. military, any home the senior Mr. Smith could have bought would be considered ineligible for a federally guaranteed loan because someone like the senior Mr. Smith could buy it. I've done no research on the Smith family beyond a quick Google to confirm that the senior Mr. Smith was an Air Force veteran so I know nothing specifically about the Smith family's property or loan history, but the barriers that were in place at the time definitely would have applied to them, as they applied to countless others.

    Given the way that home ownership was key to the vast expansion of middle-class wealth in mid-twentieth century America a government policy that deliberately excluded people of certain races from participating seems like a real tangible harm, and one that might be remedied. We know where the redlined districts were and we know who lived there from census records. A reasonable estimate of the effect the lack of readily-available credit had on the economic status of those areas can be made by comparing them to neighboring areas on the other side of the line. I'm not sure the later economic success of Will Smith, Jr. is a reason to regard systematically picking the pocket of Will Smith, Sr. as a no-harm situation or one that wouldn't have affected the younger Mr. Smith.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    As noted previously, MtM considers "white people" and "the U.S. Government" to be more or less interchangeable terms, which is in itself kind of telling.

    When you’re talking about remedying the effects of racism it’s usual to assume that the ones paying reparations will be the racists. Which generally means white people.
    Given the way that home ownership was key to the vast expansion of middle-class wealth in mid-twentieth century America a government policy that deliberately excluded people of certain races from participating seems like a real tangible harm, and one that might be remedied. We know where the redlined districts were and we know who lived there from census records. A reasonable estimate of the effect the lack of readily-available credit had on the economic status of those areas can be made by comparing them to neighboring areas on the other side of the line.

    That’s a (relatively) modern injustice, the victims of which are still alive and easily identifiable, and the financial impact of which can be reasonably estimated. Or to put it another way, exactly the sort of thing I’ve said should be dealt with.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    As noted previously, MtM considers "white people" and "the U.S. Government" to be more or less interchangeable terms, which is in itself kind of telling.

    When you’re talking about remedying the effects of racism it’s usual to assume that the ones paying reparations will be the racists. Which generally means white people.

    Like the aforementioned reparations paid to Japanese-American internees? Either the U.S. government = white people or you don't consider the Japanese internment to have been racist. Clarification, please?
    That’s a (relatively) modern injustice, the victims of which are still alive and easily identifiable, and the financial impact of which can be reasonably estimated. Or to put it another way, exactly the sort of thing I’ve said should be dealt with.

    Apparently by shaking down homeless white guys for Will Smith, I guess. Your suggested methods are passing strange.
  • I think it appropriate to remind one and all that when it comes to reparations for the Transatlantic Slave Trade a significant proportion of the bill would fall on West Africa, many of whose citizens have less financial resources than most of the potential recipients in the Americas.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    the OT concept of Jubilee - a 50 year redistribution of land, forgiving of debts and freeing indentured servants (slaves) from their obligations to masters.

    As written that doesn't seem workable. The nearest thing we have to Jubilee, that is workable, is the US notion of a Statute of Limitations - being forgiven your unpaid "debt to society" a certain number of years after the wrongdoing is past.

    The period varies with the crime, but taking 50 years as an example, is forgiving a man of 70 for what he did when he was 20 so outrageous ?

    Similarly, bankruptcy laws offer an escape route from overbearing debt. In different jurisdictions bankruptcy may be too easy, or too difficult. But the principle is there.

    Jubilee is about forgiveness - for screwing up, for losing everything, for taking on debts you can't repay.

    In some ways the very opposite of penalizing people alive now for the wrongs of past generations...





  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    Kwesi wrote: »
    I think it appropriate to remind one and all that when it comes to reparations for the Transatlantic Slave Trade a significant proportion of the bill would fall on West Africa, many of whose citizens have less financial resources than most of the potential recipients in the Americas.

    I don't know of anyone who is proposing that West Africa pay anything to Americans. In the US, this is a national issue, not an international one, and the discussion centers around the facts that much of the country's economic success was due to slave labor and that the descendants of enslaved people have been and still are systematically deprived of access to the great wealth in this country. The descendants of West African slavers have not benefitted from slavery the way the US has. The idea is that the US as a whole built a lot through slave labor, so the US as a whole should pay reparations to the people who still suffer from the longterm effects of slavery. It could also have the salutary effect of making the country have a better conversation about our past and maybe even push us toward coming to terms with it.

    Russ, it's ridiculous to talk about people being penalized by paying reparations for slavery, Jim Crow, and redlining. No one was penalized when the US government paid reparations to Japanese Americans who were interned during World War II. As a nation, we fucked up, and as a nation, we paid reparations. It's the right thing to do.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Like the aforementioned reparations paid to Japanese-American internees? Either the U.S. government = white people or you don't consider the Japanese internment to have been racist. Clarification, please?

    The Japanese internments during WW2 are a complex issue. It has to be borne in mind that America was actually at war with Japan at the time and interned German people as well, which suggests it was more about the fear of spies and saboteurs than pure racism. And after the events on Niihau in the immediate aftermath of the Pearl Harbour attack (where local citizens of Japanese descent immediately sided with a downed Japanese airman, even taking up arms against the other islanders) there was at least some justification for that concern. Ultimately, the internments were carried out by governmental decree for political reasons and thus the government was within its rights to decide to offer compensation.

    Slavery, in contrast, had no reason or justification other than racism and greed and was carried out not by the government but by wealthy white landowners. To the extent that the federal government can be said to be responsible for slavery it is at the level of allowing it, rather than commanding it. ISTM that - if compensation is to be paid at all - it should be paid by the descendants of those who were actually slave owners to the descendants of those who were actually slaves.
  • Ruth wrote: »
    The descendants of West African slavers have not benefitted from slavery the way the US has.

    So it's not about whether someone is actually guilty of the crime, but whether they have - however indirectly - benefitted from it?
  • if compensation is to be paid at all - it should be paid by the descendants of those who were actually slave owners to the descendants of those who were actually slaves.

    That's not how it works. All recent reparations have been paid by governments - Germans, Japanese etc
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    edited September 2018
    Russ wrote: »
    My objection is only at the point where you assert such benefits as a right rather than a custom.
    This raises the question, which I have asked before, of how you think you know what rights there are?
    Everyone has a right to get food, shelter, and the other essentials of human life somehow. (Because clearly if they can't get them they can neither benefit from any other right nor can they respect anyone else's rights. Someone who is starving is entitled to steal food on the 'ought implies can' principle: you are not morally bound to do what is impossible for you.) The question is how best to arrange society to meet those rights.

  • The Japanese internments during WW2 are a complex issue. It has to be borne in mind that America was actually at war with Japan at the time and interned German people as well, which suggests it was more about the fear of spies and saboteurs than pure racism.

    Every German interned by the U.S. had some demonstrable connection to the Third Reich (e.g. membership in the German-American Bund). The existence of such individuals was not seen as a blanket excuse to imprison everyone of German ancestry. Dwight Eisenhower, for example, was not imprisoned for carrying the blood of a current enemy on the evidence that others of the same ethnicity were traitors. I guess your mileage varies, but "you're a traitor by blood" seems like racism, regardless of whether you consider it "pure" or not.
    Slavery, in contrast, had no reason or justification other than racism and greed and was carried out not by the government but by wealthy white landowners. To the extent that the federal government can be said to be responsible for slavery it is at the level of allowing it, rather than commanding it.

    The federal government used its discretion in the admission of new states to expand slavery geographically. The Compromise of 1820 illustrates the ability of the federal government to limit slavery in new states, which it did only selectively. That compromise also served as the impetus for the invasion of Mexico, a federal project to provide more physical territory for the nation to serve as future slave states and thus preserve the balance established by the Missouri Compromise. The federal government also passed and enforced various Fugitive Slave Acts ensuring those who escaped slavery be returned to their owners. Their descendants too, for that matter. These are the acts of participation and promotion, not the indifference of an idle bystander.
  • MoyessaMoyessa Shipmate
    edited September 2018
    Historically, some slave-holders were compensated for their losses when slavery was abolished. Perhaps you can provide a less cringe-inducing example of your even-handed approach towards restitution.

    How about bailing out the big banks and making lowly taxpayers take the hit for them?
    I personally think Kwesi hit the nail on the head with reference to just how the world works - (& not the way I'd run it, if I were God).
    I can make my life very unhappy by waiting for someone else to make life fair for me.

  • We have an excellent example of the issue in the news: who thinks Serena Williams is a victim of sexism? That is what she (says she) thinks.

    I think this fits under the OP.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    Ruth wrote: »
    The descendants of West African slavers have not benefitted from slavery the way the US has.

    So it's not about whether someone is actually guilty of the crime, but whether they have - however indirectly - benefitted from it?

    The idea is not to address the crime itself but to undo some of the effects of the crime that still profoundly affect our society. No one will go on trial, no one will be found guilty. No one will take money out of my pocket because I'm white and my family benefitted from the post-war economic boom in ways not available to my black friends' families. I haven't personally done anything wrong. What's wrong is that millions of black people were systematically denied access to the benefits of the American economy despite their contributions to the economy. So we should redress that wrong. There's nothing weird about governments paying money to redress wrongs: if a cop kills someone while on the job, the family can sue for wrongful death, and if they win, the local government will pay damages. The cop did something wrong while acting on behalf of and in the employ of the city, so the city pays if the cop fucks up.

    If you really want to understand the reasoning for reparations, Google Ta-nehisi Coates' article in The Atlantic from a few years ago. I'd link, but I can't figure out how to do that on my phone. But Coates and reparations in a search engine will bring it up. It's a great explanation of the history of redlining and its effects.

    Also, governments are not only at fault when they mandate bad things; they are at fault when they do not protect people from each other. A government which does not have child labor laws or food safety regulations is failing its citizenry. We should use our collective power through government to keep individuals and businesses from doing shitty things. So even if no government in the US had ever mandated slavery or Jim Crow or redlining, merely permitting these things would have been profound governmental failures.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    Moyessa wrote: »
    We have an excellent example of the issue in the news: who thinks Serena Williams is a victim of sexism? That is what she (says she) thinks.

    I think this fits under the OP.

    I have no doubt she is a victim of sexism, as is every woman who gets visibly angry.
  • Ruth: There's nothing weird about governments paying money to redress wrongs: if a cop kills someone while on the job, the family can sue for wrongful death, and if they win, the local government will pay damages. The cop did something wrong while acting on behalf of and in the employ of the city, so the city pays if the cop fucks up.

    I thought the problem in the USA is that white cops get away with killing black citizens.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    if compensation is to be paid at all - it should be paid by the descendants of those who were actually slave owners to the descendants of those who were actually slaves.

    That's not how it works. All recent reparations have been paid by governments - Germans, Japanese etc

    What is and what should be are often different.
  • GwaiGwai Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    For anyone interested in Ta-nesi Coates' excellent article on reparations.
  • Ruth wrote: »
    Moyessa wrote: »
    We have an excellent example of the issue in the news: who thinks Serena Williams is a victim of sexism? That is what she (says she) thinks.

    I think this fits under the OP.

    I have no doubt she is a victim of sexism, as is every woman who gets visibly angry.

    Given that the umpire in question has in previous tournaments given exactly the same penalty to male players who did the same thing, I think it's hard to claim sexism when he does it to a female player.
  • Can you prove that Marvin? That's not what the coverage said at the time.
  • I don't know about the specific umpire, but the issue Williams highlights is about systematic sexism in professional tennis tournaments.

    Men regularly flout dress codes when removing a shirt but a woman was penalised for quickly turning her shirt around in a totally non-suggestive way. Williams had a catsuit banned in France.

    And of course men get aggressive on court and are rarely penalised. It doesn't happen all the time but enough to be noticeable.

    Even in this specific incidence - where William's coach admitted that he couldn't help expressing himself on court as almost all coaches do Williams wasn't even looking in his direction when she was penalised. Why she was singled out in this way is hard to understand.

    During a recent game, a tennis umpire even got down and started "coaching" a player he thought wasn't trying hard enough - and the umpire was eventually punished but the player as far as I can tell got no punishment at the time or since.

    Williams certainly overreacted - but then she feels bullied by the system and has a short fuse.

    Rather than blaming her, maybe focus on the sexism implicit in the system.


  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    if compensation is to be paid at all - it should be paid by the descendants of those who were actually slave owners to the descendants of those who were actually slaves.

    That's not how it works. All recent reparations have been paid by governments - Germans, Japanese etc

    What is and what should be are often different.

    But you've supplied zero reasoning for thinking that it is theoretically desirable nor practicably possible to make reparations from individual to individual.

    I can't see any good reason for wanting to do that - other than to discredit the whole concept of reparations by burying it under a mound of impracticalities and stupidity.
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited September 2018
    Ruth wrote: »
    There's nothing weird about governments paying money to redress wrongs: if a cop kills someone while on the job, the family can sue for wrongful death, and if they win, the local government will pay damages. The cop did something wrong while acting on behalf of and in the employ of the city, so the city pays if the cop fucks up.

    To be fair, if you are criminally injured in the UK, it is possible to get compensation from the state

    It's not just when state actors mess up here, I think it is accepted that when criminals cause injuries, the state takes some of the costs.

  • Kwesi wrote: »
    Ruth: There's nothing weird about governments paying money to redress wrongs: if a cop kills someone while on the job, the family can sue for wrongful death, and if they win, the local government will pay damages. The cop did something wrong while acting on behalf of and in the employ of the city, so the city pays if the cop fucks up.

    I thought the problem in the USA is that white cops get away with killing black citizens.

    We have more than one problem.
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited September 2018

    Gwai wrote: »
    For anyone interested in Ta-nesi Coates' excellent article on reparations.

    That's a remarkable and monumental (in various senses of the word) piece of work.
  • I admit I didn't read the Coates article. I know he's intelligent & that his POV appeals to plenty of people. To me, however - it sickens me; it's so full of hatred & narrow thinking (IMHO). When stupid people are racist, it's odious, but for me it's even sadder when bright people focus on such negativity.
    That is just my personal POV. I am aware that many many peoples would get reparations, if we thought we could even up all the scores and end up that everyone was treated fairly over time (would it be just for that moment of time, or would we make reparations to every sufferer, over time, and also from the past?

    I don't think it is humanly possible. I couldn't live with so much resentment, and I do have experience of being a specific racial group with major bone to pick with another racial group.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    if compensation is to be paid at all - it should be paid by the descendants of those who were actually slave owners to the descendants of those who were actually slaves.

    That's not how it works. All recent reparations have been paid by governments - Germans, Japanese etc

    What is and what should be are often different.

    But you've supplied zero reasoning for thinking that it is theoretically desirable nor practicably possible to make reparations from individual to individual.

    The usual notion of restorative justice is that the perpetrator is made to compensate the victim.

    So if someone suggests that you should be made to compensate a victim, it would be only natural for you to say "Why me ? I'm innocent of any wrongdoing in this matter".

    The criminal injuries compensation scheme you refer to is ISTM a form of insurance. Nobody knows who is going to be a victim of crime in future, so it's not unreasonable for people to agree to each pay a little into a fund to support those who experience significant trauma as a result of crime. Not the same thing at all.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Ruth wrote: »

    I have no doubt she is a victim of sexism, as is every woman who gets visibly angry.

    Your criterion for something being sexist is that a woman gets angry enough about it that her anger is visible ??

    Sounds like a good example of "victim group has carte blanche to define their own oppression" to me...
  • MoyessaMoyessa Shipmate
    edited September 2018
  • Wow, what an utterly junk piece of writing.

    Calling someone racist for writing about centuries of racism? Okay then.
  • Russ wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    if compensation is to be paid at all - it should be paid by the descendants of those who were actually slave owners to the descendants of those who were actually slaves.

    That's not how it works. All recent reparations have been paid by governments - Germans, Japanese etc

    What is and what should be are often different.

    But you've supplied zero reasoning for thinking that it is theoretically desirable nor practicably possible to make reparations from individual to individual.

    The usual notion of restorative justice is that the perpetrator is made to compensate the victim.

    So if someone suggests that you should be made to compensate a victim, it would be only natural for you to say "Why me ? I'm innocent of any wrongdoing in this matter".

    The criminal injuries compensation scheme you refer to is ISTM a form of insurance. Nobody knows who is going to be a victim of crime in future, so it's not unreasonable for people to agree to each pay a little into a fund to support those who experience significant trauma as a result of crime. Not the same thing at all.

    No it is a government payment. It's only not the same thing because you assert it to be because it stands against the bollocks you are spreading. It's a reparation.

    Just like the miners compensation is a reparation and other compensations are repatrations.

    Nobody paid a premium, no policies were taken out. Ergo it is not insurance.
  • Moyessa wrote: »

    "Man writing about systemic racism I say doesn't exist, should be more cheerful" says columnist. As a take, it's not even that novel on that part of the right. You can generally measure how 'dog-whistly' such pieces are by the number of mentions of Steve Sailor, Charles Murray, et al in the comments.

    As it happens, I stumbled across this piece today: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/09/18/theres-overwhelming-evidence-that-the-criminal-justice-system-is-racist-heres-the-proof/

    In highlighting the piece on twitter, the author posted another column he'd written for Reason a few years back, highlighting how at that point he thought complaints were just more evidence of a grievance culture, and how his thinking had moved on since.
  • Not even a dog whistle. Note how the editor of the Atlantic is described simply as white in contrast to the nasty writer - deliberately to put a line between the (apparent) editorial arbitors of truth and the nasty, blamey, black writer - the latter of whom is rich and famous and should shut up.
  • Moyessa wrote: »

    And you get a nice long quote from Bentley Hart as well, full of his usual sickly fantasies and non secateurs (a joke), I need some fresh air now. Reading Hart is a useful purgative of any wistful fantasies I might have about religion.
  • Russ wrote: »

    The usual notion of restorative justice is that the perpetrator is made to compensate the victim.

    It is but one notion or mode. Stop trying, not for the first time, to narrow the scope of the debate.I can't remember which logical fallacy it is, but it is one of many we see in your posts.

    So if someone suggests that you should be made to compensate a victim, it would be only natural for you to say "Why me ? I'm innocent of any wrongdoing in this matter".
    You may not have done anything "wrong" but you and your heirs and successors may have gained unjustly. Those from whom you gained should be compensated.

    The criminal injuries compensation scheme you refer to is ISTM a form of insurance. Nobody knows who is going to be a victim of crime in future, so it's not unreasonable for people to agree to each pay a little into a fund to support those who experience significant trauma as a result of crime. Not the same thing at all.
    A red herring. Compensation, restitution and the like are akin to civil damages.

  • Russ wrote: »
    The usual notion of restorative justice is that the perpetrator is made to compensate the victim.
    The usual notion would be that the beneficiary compensates the victim.

  • I thought Restorative Justice was where victims and those causing crime meet to try to bring reconciliation.

    British criminal law has some system to try to give compensation to the victims via fines on the convicted person - and I know that other systems have more extensive systems of direct payments. In Iran - I think - murderers sentenced to death can only be let off if relatives accept a compensation payment.

    I don't think either is what can be called restorative justice.
Sign In or Register to comment.