|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 19, 2019 20:18:02 GMT -5
There's two sides to every story. Three if you consider your side, my side, and the truth. That said, I freely accept there are a multitude of arguments to made against reparations. I've probably articulated a few of them myself with the feasibility of reparations with a Trump in the White House, McConnell in the Senate and Pelosi in the House with no particular interest in pushing any issues that will only die a quick death in the upper chamber and never reach the Oval Office for a veto. I don't know John McWhorter personally, but he's an articulate and intelligent man and well-positioned to make a rational and reasonable argument against reparations. I don't entirely disagree with him, but Ta-Neshi Coates makes a much clearer case for reparations than McWhorter does against it. As far as the essay from the Quillette writer, I checked out of it pretty quickly. Right about the point where the author wrote admiringly of one Kevin Williamson of The National Review.
I'm always wary of whataboutism arguments, because the poverty of Somali-Americans have little to do with reparations for native-born Black Americans, because while they both may be able to trace a common bondage under America's original sin, Somalis did not suffer from the indignities of slavery, Plessy v. Ferguson, Dred Scott, post-Reconstruction, lynching, Black codes, sundown towns, race riots, Jim Crow, the Tuskegee Experiment, segregation, the Ku Klux Klan, forced sterilization, the Port Chicago Mutiny, COINTELPRO, the assassination of Martin Luther King, the Three Fifths Compromise which led to the creation of the Electoral College that to this day is a boon for Republican presidential candidates who lose the popular vote yet are still appointed as president, eugenics, The Bell Curve, The Turner Diaries, The Birth of A Nation, The Star-Spangled Banner and on and on like hot butter on popcorn. Anyone who admiringly quotes someone like Kevin Williamson will have to explain why when Williamson has said stuff like this: And this. And this .I don't know who Coleman Hughes is besides the author of the Quillette essay you linked to, but I don't find him making a particularly compelling argument against reparations and when he quotes a guy like Williamson who has also said women who have abortions should be arrested and prosecuted, I seriously question the soundness of his judgment. Plus, when I've never heard of you or the publication you're writing for, but can spot the rightward slant of their bias from a mile away, your credibility takes a serious hit in the broadside. There's nothing particularly wrong about occupying a right-center position like the one Quillette has staked out, but all it takes to move out of the center and shift to the Right is to fawn and slurp a bald-headed prick like Kevin Williamson. But hey, two out of three sources ain't bad, Optimus.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Mar 20, 2019 11:37:11 GMT -5
Thanks to both of your for your sources. I'll have to read them all. I've long been aware of the redlining/segregated housing issue and the impact it's had on black wealth for a long time. It should certainly be at the core of the reparation issue.
I have the same issue with reparations that I have with all massive settlements to citizens for immoral acts committed against them by government functionaries. (Think police brutality cases or wrongful arrest, for example.) It won't be the people who committed the acts that will pay the reparations, it will be the average taxpayer.
If we could penalize the people who actually forced redlining and segregated housing on the black community, I'd be all for it. Taking wealth from millions of people who had nothing to do with the crimes seems a case of two wrongs don't make a right.
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Mar 20, 2019 13:29:45 GMT -5
Thanks to both of your for your sources. I'll have to read them all. I've long been aware of the redlining/segregated housing issue and the impact it's had on black wealth for a long time. It should certainly be at the core of the reparation issue. I have the same issue with reparations that I have with all massive settlements to citizens for immoral acts committed against them by government functionaries. (Think police brutality cases or wrongful arrest, for example.) It won't be the people who committed the acts that will pay the reparations, it will be the average taxpayer. If we could penalize the people who actually forced redlining and segregated housing on the black community, I'd be all for it. Taking wealth from millions of people who had nothing to do with the crimes seems a case of two wrongs don't make a right. That's always my initial thought, too. I mean, I came to the US in 1994, what the hell did I ever do?!
Also, seems like Native Americans would be first in line for any reparations, no?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2019 16:29:31 GMT -5
Also my issue -- and I agree with Don that I'd be 100% for it if we could penalize those who did wrong or have directly profited. It rather like the idea of penalizing those (like, ahem, our president) whose wealth came in some measure from segregated housing. It's not so much a matter of whether reparations are deserved as it is whether someone else should pay them. A lot of us have no ancestors who set foot in this country before the 20th century. (Mine were all from Europe and all dirt poor as far back as anyone knows--if they ever had anything to do with slavery, it was likely in ancient Roman times...)
I also wonder how we'd determine who gets reparations vs who doesn't. For those whose families HAVE been in this country going back before the civil war, an awful lot have some Black ancestry (lots of people learn this to their surprise when they get their DNA done), and it almost certainly is a result of slavery. Conversely, many people who identify as Black have some White ancestry -- for the same sad reason. The same is true with regard to Native American ancestry. Would it be done by a percentage on ancestry? How one identifies? Wouldn't the latter be subject to some abuse?
I will read NT's and Opty's articles when I get a breath. It's an interesting topic, and I'm interested in hearing the arguments pro and con. There's no question this nation as a nation profited greatly both from slavery and from persecution of Native Americans, and that it was an atrocity. But this nation is also composed of a lot of people whose ancestors had nothing to do with that (and may have been persecuted themselves).
|
|
|
Post by Don on Mar 21, 2019 6:28:32 GMT -5
Kirsten Gillibrand is bragging on Twitter (I don't use it but saw the post) that she and some other idiot on parade have introduced legislation to limit opiod prescriptions for acute pain to seven days... "Because no one needs a month's supply for a wisdom tooth extraction."
As the family member of a chronic pain sufferer, please, Go to the Hell you're trying to force on others. As a lifelong opponent of the War on (some) Drugs, please, Go to the Hell you're trying to force on others.
And she's running on the left? The so-called "liberal" side of the aisle?
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Mar 21, 2019 7:31:17 GMT -5
You'd think that would be a choice left to a patient and their doctor, but noooooo!
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Mar 21, 2019 7:32:46 GMT -5
Is it me, or the D's running hard to the left?
I feel as if they see Trump and assume he'll be easy prey, so they just need to win the hard left to get the nomination. Nobody is even trying as far as I can see to appeal to the middle.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 21, 2019 8:12:00 GMT -5
It's the second one, imo. The far left is where the money is right now, where the attention is. It's dangerous to not try to appease the far left right now (happened last cycle with the Repubs and the far right).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2019 9:28:04 GMT -5
Gillibrand was deservedly stomped on from both sides of the aisle for that announcement. Her tweet about it was ratioed in a way I've rarely seen.
She's not going to be the Dem nominee. Neither is AOC.
I find it completely bizarre that some of y'all are so extremely eager to "both sides" that you jump on anything stupid anyone on the left does as evidence that the entire Democratic party has gone over to communism extremism. We have extremists, but they are not in control. Meanwhile, of course, our other major party, which is actually in control, has been utterly hijacked by alt-right lying douchenozzles.
I'm all for calling out stupid. Gillibrand's idea IS stupid, and totally deserves calling out. It will never, ever be passed. Where I quarrel with many of you is your insistence that right now, at this political moment, it is the Democratic party that is extreme, or that it is anywhere close to being as extreme as the GOP.
It's not.
If you're just looking for excuses to vote third party or Republican, I guess I can't do much about it. But I'll say for the record that I think it's ridiculous at this particular moment to paint both sides as equally extreme. Take a look at the current leader of each party. Even if you want to look to the fringes, ffs, Devin Nunes is suing a fake cow on Twitter. And, ahem, do take a look at the president.
There is no fuckjng contest as to which party has gone over to its extreme fringe.
But yes, Gillibrand's proposal IS awful and deserves to die, as I assure you it will. I also assure you she won't be the Dem presidential candidate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2019 11:22:31 GMT -5
Gillibrand was deservedly stomped on from both sides of the aisle for that announcement. Her tweet about it was ratioed in a way I've rarely seen. She's not going to be the Dem nominee. Neither is AOC. I find it completely bizarre that some of y'all are so extremely eager to "both sides" that you jump on anything stupid anyone on the left does as evidence that the entire Democratic party has gone over to communism extremism. We have extremists, but they are not in control. Meanwhile, of course, our other major party, which is actually in control, has been utterly hijacked by alt-right lying douchenozzles. I'm all for calling out stupid. Gillibrand's idea IS stupid, and totally deserves calling out. It will never, ever be passed. Where I quarrel with many of you is your insistence that right now, at this political moment, it is the Democratic party that is extreme, or that it is anywhere close to being as extreme as the GOP. It's not. If you're just looking for excuses to vote third party or Republican, I guess I can't do much about it. But I'll say for the record that I think it's ridiculous at this particular moment to paint both sides as equally extreme. Take a look at the current leader of each party. Even if you want to look to the fringes, ffs, Devin Nunes is suing a fake cow on Twitter. And, ahem, do take a look at the president. There is no fuckjng contest as to which party has gone over to its extreme fringe. But yes, Gillibrand's proposal IS awful and deserves to die, as I assure you it will. I also assure you she won't be the Dem presidential candidate. To be totally clear here: By no means do I think the Democratic party and all of its members are perfect (nor have you ever found me saying so, correct?). I would agree that sometimes some of its representatives have very bad, ill-considered ideas (like Gillibrand's here), and that sometimes its members behave less than perfectly (e.g., the mess in Virginia). But for the record, here's where I see VERY distinct differences in the major parties, as they stand now -- and for the record, it's why I've been gradually moving left (though it's not so much me moving as the parties...): When a highly-placed figure on the right (cough Trump cough) does something horrible, party leadership and rank and file registered Republicans consolidate behind him/her to defend the behavior, or at least rationalize it. Only a few speak up strongly to condemn it, and they, by and large, are condemned as traitors, RINOs etc. That's why a lot of that minority are leaving the party. Ditto when a Trumpian wing GOP policy is a truly bad idea -- family separation, tariffs, that fucking $25 billion wall, and that fucking state of emergency -- Mitch McConnell and Joe Q GOP Voter loyally rally behind it. You think Dems do the same? Puh-leaze. A minority does, I grant you. But we shoved Al Franken out for waaaaay less egregious behavior than Trump ever did on his best day. And I promise you -- Gillibrand's stupid drug bill will die an ignominious death. Note how Nancy Pelosi has put the strategic reins on what some of the new, youthful members would like to do -- and then watch how Mitch McConnell and his crew enable Trump's worst impulses, whether by outright defending them or being silent. The Democratic party is far from perfect. But it's just nowhere near the trainwreck the GOP is. This whole "oh, the Democrats are just so exTREME!" thing can only be maintained if one ignores completely what's happening in the GOP. And yanno, if Dems had control of the Senate and/or White House, I wouldn't mind it so much. But right now, I submit that it's the GOPs excesses/transgressions that are by far the bigger danger. That doesn't mean I think we should shut up about Democratic excesses, but I do think the constant attempt to equate them with the Republican excesses is extremely misguided -- and strengthens Trump and the Trumpians.
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Mar 21, 2019 11:42:59 GMT -5
The o'l "I'm not as bad as that guy tactic" LOL
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2019 12:16:05 GMT -5
By the way, have I mentioned that I have a new favorite conservative publication? The Bulwark. thebulwark.com/ twitter.com/BulwarkOnline I'm a regular reader. (Probably obviously) I absolutely don't agree with everything said there, but I find it intelligent and engaging, with some good writers -- and they make a point of including other points of view, too. (E.g., they had the delightfully funny left-of-center Molly Jong Fast covering the clown car that is CPAC.) To my eyes, they stand for what I think of as "real" conservative values and ideas. I think some of you would enjoy it, too. (I used to go to The National Review for well-argued, well-written conservative viewpoints, but though they still have some worthwhile content I think increasingly they are including real garbage in there and too many arguments strained to the breaking point -- and, I fear, made in bad faith. And of course The Weekly Standard is no more.)
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Mar 22, 2019 16:24:30 GMT -5
I can't believe I'm doing this, but holy hell, no one else is responding, so I will. Note - I will be in Italy for a while, so I don't plan on ruining my trip with insults from TCG. You're right - there's no contest. And the party that's extreme is the one that: 1) wants to abolish the electoral college 2) wants federally funded single payer health care while abolishing the insurance industry 3) wants to implement The Green New Deal and well, I can't think of any recent policy idea that is further left than that one, not to mention it will bankrupt the country and stomp on our freedoms. (oh, wait, I already said leftist sorry) 4)wants to pack the supreme court 5)cheers and lights up buildings for legislation allowing abortion on demand up to birth (when for years and currently, the majority of the country is against late term abortions unless the life of the mother is at stake - see multiple Gallup polls) 6) wants to abolish ICE and open our borders (note - 76 THOUSAND people tried to cross last MONTH, the most in 12 years, we can't even detain people due to everything is full to overflowing but hey no crisis.) 7) wants to give illegal aliens voting rights 8) wants to double the minimum wage 9) wants guaranteed universal basic income 10)wants to give free college tuition 11)wants government takeover of corporate boards 12)attacks and ridicules moderate and reasonable possible candidates like Howard Schultz because they aren't subscribing to leftist orthodoxy But, yeah, if you want to put the example of Devin Nunes suing a parody account on Twitter as an example of extremism on the right, go right ahead. Trump might be extreme in his behavior, or his narcissism, or his attraction to porn stars, but his policies are mainstream conservative (and thank God for that) unless they are to the left of conservative (i.e. his trade policies.) Here are a couple of articles that address the leftward lurch of Dems: www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/11/democratic-voters-move-leftward-range-issues/574834/www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/7/18165283/ocasio-cortez-aoc-60-minutes-democratic-partywww.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/symmetric-polarization/544059/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2019 17:05:43 GMT -5
Par for the course. You post something like this, then announce you're too busy/don't want to be insulted, etc. etc., lest we come back (as you know we can) with a horrifying laundry list of what Trump, his administration and Mitch McConnell have been up to. But hell, I've done so very much posting over the last two years about the kids orphaned by the US government and locked in cages and the 9 year old American citizens detained and questioned for 30 hours and the military veterans deported and the trillions skyrocketing the budget to provide tax breaks to billionaires and corporations and a fucking state of fucking emergency so that Trump can override Congress and build the fucking 25 billion dollar wall we don't need and most of us don't want and... Seriously, fuck this. I'm going to do a rare thing and tell you that I'm putting you on ignore, just so you know you're safe from my arguments in future and feel comfortable coming back. Because yes, if I don't put you on ignore, I will inevitably respond sooner or later when you say something like the above, even though I know just what a losing cause it is. I give up. You win. But here is one parting thought for you to mull. If the Republican party is currently the bastion of political sanity and the Democrats are the party of crazed extremists, just why is it that a yuuuge pile of well-known long-time Republicans have been making basically the same arguments I do about the Trump administration and indeed, much of what the GOP Congress has been doing, and in many cases deserting the party altogether? And it's your intellectuals -- it's your George Wills and Bill Kristols. They sound far more like me than like you these days. That is not happening in the other direction, however much Candace Owen might like it to do so. Have they all turned overnight into wild-eyed leftist extremists? I'm not looking for an answer. I'm just putting it to you for your consideration.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Mar 22, 2019 17:30:36 GMT -5
Of course you take it that I won't respond to reasonable arguments. Of course I will. But no, I'm not going to respond to insults. We all have our own coping mechanisms, and mine has now become don't respond to insulting posts that are personal. I will respond to cogent arguments within the constraints I will have with internet and time while in Europe. I see it's ok that YOU can have constraints while traveling, but not me. So yes, I think putting me on ignore is probably a good idea for both of us. So thank you.
I have mulled that over, and the only explanation I can come up with is that their better judgement and their perspective of the greater good and the macro good for our country is overshadowed by their Trump hatred and their need to be popular. And these days, especially on social media, it's very difficult to be popular when you support Trump.
I don't consider Kristol or Tom Nichols or Jennifer Rubin either wise or Republican anymore. They aren't objective enough. Jonah Goldberg is an example of someone who has been anti-Trump but who has a level head, is a great writer, and who gives Trump credit on occasion, when he deserves it. Of course, he criticizes him a ton, but I do read those criticisms and I take them to heart because he's wise. Those others I mentioned...not so much.
|
|