Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Politics. The feel in your country.

1483484486488489635

Comments

  • booinyoureyesbooinyoureyes Member Posts: 6,162

    Having extreme views is not against the rules; the only extreme view that's forbidden is advocating violence. But again, that is a subject for the moderating team.

    I thought that racism and transphobia counted as well, no?

  • booinyoureyesbooinyoureyes Member Posts: 6,162
    edited February 2018

    When has nationalization ever been tried in the US, outside of FDR's holiday to prevent the run on banks and the war effort in WW2?? Roosevelt could have very easily nationalized the banks and didn't. No parts of industry are the province of the government. The only nationalized programs deal with the social safety net, which ALL modern societies have. The most radical ideas put forth by left in this country are universal health-care (which ALL of Europe has) and universal free college. Hardly tyranny, or anything approaching it in either case.

    Agree for the most part, but there are rare examples. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are approaching nationalization of the housing finance industry. The federal government taking a controlling interest in General Motors is another.

    Truman and the steel industry was a failed attempt. Transportation is highly nationalized, but not unusually so.

    Bernie Sanders wants to go further than most European nations and nationalize the entire healthcare industry (1/6th of the economy), but he will never be president.

    So it is rare, but not unheard of in the US.
    Bernie Sanders wants Medicare for All or Single Payer.

    Doctors are not employed by the government, they just get paid from the government instead of private insurance companies. Prices go down because there's less middlemen attempting to profiteer in the between patients and doctors. It's not much different from European systems.
    Sanders proposed actual nationalized (NHS-style) earlier in his career before realizing it was doa in the US. Also single payer,in many ways is nationalization of the healthcare insurance industry.

  • booinyoureyesbooinyoureyes Member Posts: 6,162
    edited February 2018

    Balrog99 said:

    As a scientist I agree with @FinneousPJ on this. There is likely more at play here than just race. Family dynamics is one factor. Culture is another.

    Even if it was just race in some instances, basing favorable treatment in hiring or acceptance into universities on more general hardship would help those who have suffered on account of their ethnicity/skin color. The problem is that this is apparently very hard to swallow in a culture that is increasingly placing racial identity above all else.
    Economists at Georgia Tech did a study of racial bias in hiring. They responded to help wanted ads in Boston and Chicago with fake resumes. The resumes would be randomly assigned a "white name" or a "black name". Resumes with white-sounding names received 50% more callbacks for interviews than those with black-sounding names. The researchers found that having a white-sounding name was the equivalent of 8 years of experience in terms of the callback rate.

    http://cos.gatech.edu/facultyres/Diversity_Studies/Bertrand_LakishaJamal.pdf
    When did I, in any instance, talk about private employers? The argument you seem to be rebutting was never made.


    We are talking about state entities. Unlike private employers, the government have almost plenary power over people, and therefore has an obligation to treat everyone equally. This is the ideal embodied by the Equal Protection Clause.


    Are you suggesting we apply racial quotas to private employment? If so, that is far too radical a position for almost anyone to swallow. This is best handled through anti-discrimination law, not blunt instruments.

  • booinyoureyesbooinyoureyes Member Posts: 6,162
    Dev6 said:

    Well that's not good but the white people's ancestors stole it to begin with right.

    I love this way of thinking. Sure, let's kick every single white person out of africa because they stole the land.
    While we're at it, though, let's also kick every single black person out of europe. I don't care if their family has been here for a thousand years, back to africa with them!
    Let's see how well that plays out.
    Well, most blacks in Europe came there through immigration, not conquest. While your argument against the seizures may have merit, this line of reasoning doesn't really support your case.

  • booinyoureyesbooinyoureyes Member Posts: 6,162
    This South African question is very difficult.

    On one hand, it is very unsavory to hold people responsible for their ancestor's crimes. Even in cases that are more recent (apartheid only ended in the early 90s) there will be many people who will be punished who did not cause any of the injustices.

    On the other hand, without such measures there is very little you can do to serve teh cause of corrective justice. The recourse available to the victims are limited.

    I have no idea where I stand in the abstract, and I'd have to look at the specific law to decide if I spport it.

  • Dev6Dev6 Member Posts: 719
    ThacoBell said:

    But Africa is the origin all of all peoples! We should kick everyone out of every other country and force them all the live in Africa! The other countries belong to wildlife!

    I, hmm... I'm gonna need a lot of sunscreen...

    ThacoBell
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 7,008

    South Africa has voted to confiscate white owned farm land without conpensation. They are not the first african country to do this.

    I did some travelling around Zimbabwe in 1993 and remember thinking that they'd done a pretty good job of maintaining racial harmony in the period since independence in 1980. Part of the reason for that was that land reforms were carried out on a 'willing seller, willing buyer' basis. Although criticized for making too little progress in redistribution, that program was responsible for reducing the area of white-owned farms by 20% between 1980 and 1987. That seems quite significant to me, though it fell well short of meeting the expectations that had been raised.

    Up to the late 1990s the UK was providing finance to support the voluntary land redistribution program as part of its post-colonial responsibilities. However, the increasing politicization of the country, the ignoring of court judgments and the corruption that saw much of the land transfers going to benefit politicians and their cronies all went down badly with the UK and funding was stopped. That accelerated the move to confiscation without compensation - initially just by forcible occupation of land by veterans of the Rhodesian wars and later by means of a constitutional amendment in 2005. There are now no white farm owners remaining in Zimbabwe.

    The consequences in Zimbabwe for both agricultural production and racial harmony were entirely predictable and I hope South Africa does not go down the same route of deliberately stoking racial tensions as a means of hiding government failures and corruption.

    I mentioned recently how amazing I found it that South Africa managed the transition away from apartheid with as little violence as it did. I think a major part of that was the commitment they made to avoid seeking 'justice' for past wrongs, but instead aiming to understand what happened and move forward (Truth and Reconciliation Commission). A different process, but with some similarities in philosophy was used in Northern Ireland.

    I know not all the participants in this thread would agree, but personally I think the current distribution of wealth in South Africa between the races is unfair and I would support gentle moves to correct that - through things like school scholarships, land transfers with compensation and infrastructure developments. If the country changes the focus though from looking to correct current problems to seeking to apportion blame for things in the past that might (or might not) have led to those problems I would expect conditions to deteriorate sharply for everyone.

    ZaghoulProontdunbar
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 7,008
    ThacoBell said:

    But Africa is the origin all of all peoples! We should kick everyone out of every other country and force them all the live in Africa! The other countries belong to wildlife!

    But surely the origin of life was in space. Now where did I put that spaceship ...

    Balrog99MathsorcererThacoBellProont
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,821
    edited February 2018
    It never ceases to amaze me how oppressed people, when finally given actual freedom by their oppressors, are just expected to smile and be grateful to them, and ignore the fact that all the intrinsic benefits of that society have been benefitting ONLY the oppressors for decades if not centuries, and will continue to do so in perpetuity without action. Oppressive societies do, in fact, sometimes have to pay a price for what was done in their name. Whether or not all Germans supported Hitler is immaterial, they all paid the price for allowing him to be in power. The white population of South Africa was on board with systematic oppression of the black population for most of the last century. I suppose this concept is pretty alien to those of us in the US, because we've never, as a society, had to pay the price for anything we have done wrong, outside of military casualties. Frankly, the white population of America are the ones who should be thanking their lucky stars that the African-American population of this country is as patient and level-headed and forgiving as they are given all the shit they have been put through.

    Make no mistake, during the NFL kneeling controversy Trump purposefully inflamed, the main word you heard on the right was that the kneeling African-American players were "ungrateful". Which translates into "why can't you just be happy you aren't slaves anymore and have had civil right for a couple of decades".

    semiticgoddessProont
  • SorcererV1ct0rSorcererV1ct0r Member Posts: 2,173
    edited February 2018

    Balrog99 said:

    Sounds like race doesn't mean much in our southern neighbors. Maybe we can learn something from them!

    Actually, studies have shown that Latin America has significant racial and ethnic divides in economic opportunity.

    "In Panama, for example, 90 percent of Indigenous peoples live below the poverty line and 69.5 percent live in extreme poverty, compared to just 30 percent of the non-Indigenous population. In Peru, 34 percent of Afro-descendants live below the poverty line, compared to only 23 percent of mestizos. In Brazil, per capita monthly incomes for Brazilians of European descent are more than double those of Afro-descendants. Similar poverty and income gaps can be found in countries throughout the region."

    http://www.americasquarterly.org/content/behind-numbers-race-and-ethnicity-latin-america
    Race relations in south america is complex like in anglo america. If i remember correctly i saw a blog of a afro argentine saying that he suffered more racism in Argentina than in germany. About difference in income, is truth that there are racism, but the statistics are inflated. Since there are a lot of race mixing in south america, a lot of statistics consider"mestizos" as white when is convenient and as blacks when is convenient.

    Also you have some polemics like
    Company tries to sell toilet paper using ‘black is beautiful’ slogan with white model
    Source http://metro.co.uk/2017/10/24/company-tries-to-sell-toilet-paper-using-black-is-beautiful-slogan-with-white-model-7025011/?ito=cbshare

  • Dev6Dev6 Member Posts: 719
    edited February 2018

    Also you have some polemics like
    Company tries to sell toilet paper using ‘black is beautiful’ slogan with white model
    Source http://metro.co.uk/2017/10/24/company-tries-to-sell-toilet-paper-using-black-is-beautiful-slogan-with-white-model-7025011/?ito=cbshare

    As if I needed any more proof that everything is considered racism nowadays.
    How much do you wanna bet that people would still complain if this ad used a black model instead?
    It's as if people enjoy getting offended by the most trivial crap.


    Having said that, I'm not sure if I like the idea of black toilet paper.

    SorcererV1ct0r
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,821
    edited February 2018
    @Mathsorcerer
    Not a Christian now, but raised Catholic, so generally speaking, I do believe in two major tenants of the religion, simply applied to society, which are:

    1.) No forgiveness without contrition and penance

    and

    2.) Faith (or I suppose you could substitute pride in your country, or patriotism) without good works is meaningless.

    MathsorcerersemiticgoddessProont
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,833

    Having extreme views is not against the rules; the only extreme view that's forbidden is advocating violence. But again, that is a subject for the moderating team.

    I thought that racism and transphobia counted as well, no?
    Yes. The Site Rules also forbid "unapologetic bigotry."

    booinyoureyes
  • BillyYankBillyYank Member Posts: 2,769

    Similarly, it never ceases to amaze me how some people continue to think that people now should be forced to pay for the mistakes and/or crimes their ancestors committed. How far back in time does culpability reach? If we are going to abide by that logic why don't we go back to putting people in prison for crimes their parents commit? "Sorry, kid, but your mother shot a cop while robbing a bank so you have to finish out her sentence--you'll be out in 15 years." Logically, those are the same arguments.

    Unless I am mistaken, don't you count yourself as "not a Christian", @jjstraka34 ? I ask this because it appears as if you are suggesting that both people and nations operate under the principle of Original Sin--the crime was committed by someone else long ago but you must continue to pay the price for it.

    I ask again: how far back in time does this culpability reach? Only 100 years? 200 years? 500? 1,000? Where is the arbitrary cutoff point? If we go back far enough, then everyone owes everyone else either blood and/or money.

    If my grandfather stole a Picasso from a museum, do I get to keep it? If I buy a diamond necklace from the pawn shop that bought it from a jewel thief, is it mine now?

    semiticgoddesssmeagolheart
  • MathsorcererMathsorcerer Member Posts: 3,009
    edited February 2018
    I have never addressed the idea of forgiveness as it would apply to those things, that is true.

    @BillyYank Both questions really depend upon whether the specific item in question may be traced. In the first instance the Picasso is known (being the only one of its kind) and the museum would definitely have had it logged in their register as either "owned" or "on permanent loan from the private collection of some wealthy donor". In the second instance...did the necklace have a serial number or some other identifier? If so then it would probably have to be returned; however, if not then can authorities *prove* that the necklace in question was stolen? If not, then it is your necklace.

    It is precisely because of the specific nature in those examples that those examples do not quite equate to the position I have taken. Consider my grandfather, whose construction business in Texas I have noted before. I am 99.99% certain he probably hired an illegal immigrant at some point (whether he knew it or not is another question...but he probably knew). That crime--violation of immigration laws---resulted in money in his pocket and ultimately some of the money in his pocket was used to my benefit. How much money do I owe for those crimes? How much did I benefit from them? Did it pay for part of my education? (it didn't, but the question needs to be asked) If it did, then did I earn the life I have now on the labor of illegal workers?

    Anyone who states that people alive now must pay for the atrocities their forebears committed needs to be able to *prove*, beyond any reasonable doubt, that *none* of their ancestors ever committed any atrocity--never owned slaves, never dealt in the slave trade, didn't engage in the wholesale slaughter of some tribe or group of people, etc. Again, how far back in time does culpability reach? Five generations? Ten generations? Twenty-five?

    semiticgoddessProontThacoBell
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 7,008
    BillyYank said:

    If my grandfather stole a Picasso from a museum, do I get to keep it? If I buy a diamond necklace from the pawn shop that bought it from a jewel thief, is it mine now?

    I think that's down to the statute of limitations. In the case of the Picasso the answer would be yes, you can keep it - though there are odd examples of people who choose not to do so in that situation. If the diamond necklace has been bought relatively soon after being stolen then you probably can't keep it - though there are legal principles used in some jurisdictions to provide protection for innocent purchasers of stolen goods.

    semiticgoddess
  • ZaghoulZaghoul Member, Moderator Posts: 4,194

    It never ceases to amaze me how oppressed people, when finally given actual freedom by their oppressors, are just expected to smile and be grateful to them, and ignore the fact that all the intrinsic benefits of that society have been benefitting ONLY the oppressors for decades if not centuries, and will continue to do so in perpetuity without action. Oppressive societies do, in fact, sometimes have to pay a price for what was done in their name. Whether or not all Germans supported Hitler is immaterial, they all paid the price for allowing him to be in power. The white population of South Africa was on board with systematic oppression of the black population for most of the last century. I suppose this concept is pretty alien to those of us in the US, because we've never, as a society, had to pay the price for anything we have done wrong, outside of military casualties. Frankly, the white population of America are the ones who should be thanking their lucky stars that the African-American population of this country is as patient and level-headed and forgiving as they are given all the shit they have been put through.

    Make no mistake, during the NFL kneeling controversy Trump purposefully inflamed, the main word you heard on the right was that the kneeling African-American players were "ungrateful". Which translates into "why can't you just be happy you aren't slaves anymore and have had civil right for a couple of decades".

    Seems like the Civil War was a pretty darn big price to pay for things America did in the past.

    semiticgoddessThacoBell
  • SorcererV1ct0rSorcererV1ct0r Member Posts: 2,173
    Dev6 said:

    Also you have some polemics like
    Company tries to sell toilet paper using ‘black is beautiful’ slogan with white model
    Source http://metro.co.uk/2017/10/24/company-tries-to-sell-toilet-paper-using-black-is-beautiful-slogan-with-white-model-7025011/?ito=cbshare

    As if I needed any more proof that everything is considered racism nowadays.
    How much do you wanna bet that people would still complain if this ad used a black model instead?
    It's as if people enjoy getting offended by the most trivial crap.


    Having said that, I'm not sure if I like the idea of black toilet paper.
    Me too. Black toilet paper turns more hard to "see", but nowdays there are people complaining about representativity in Witcher 3, a Polish cultural game and Kingdom come, a historical accurate game in Bohemia... There are a lot of African empires in history. Why not explore more about many African cultures and African mythology in games instead?

    PS : Maria Ruy Barbosa is gorgeous

    Dev6semiticgoddessBalrog99
  • AstroBryGuyAstroBryGuy Member Posts: 3,415

    Balrog99 said:

    As a scientist I agree with @FinneousPJ on this. There is likely more at play here than just race. Family dynamics is one factor. Culture is another.

    Even if it was just race in some instances, basing favorable treatment in hiring or acceptance into universities on more general hardship would help those who have suffered on account of their ethnicity/skin color. The problem is that this is apparently very hard to swallow in a culture that is increasingly placing racial identity above all else.
    Economists at Georgia Tech did a study of racial bias in hiring. They responded to help wanted ads in Boston and Chicago with fake resumes. The resumes would be randomly assigned a "white name" or a "black name". Resumes with white-sounding names received 50% more callbacks for interviews than those with black-sounding names. The researchers found that having a white-sounding name was the equivalent of 8 years of experience in terms of the callback rate.

    http://cos.gatech.edu/facultyres/Diversity_Studies/Bertrand_LakishaJamal.pdf
    When did I, in any instance, talk about private employers? The argument you seem to be rebutting was never made.


    We are talking about state entities. Unlike private employers, the government have almost plenary power over people, and therefore has an obligation to treat everyone equally. This is the ideal embodied by the Equal Protection Clause.
    The point is that racial bias is real. It isn't just "family dynamics" or "culture" as has been suggested. The study I cited controlled other factors than perceived racial identity based on the name.

    It would be nice is governments actually treated everyone equally, but governments are organizations made of people, and their biases can affect how that government works (and doesn't work). The Equal Protection Clause took effect in 1868, yet 100 years later, in 1968, Dr. King still had to lead a fight for racial equality. Just because it is the law doesn't mean it is reality, unfortunately.

    Are you suggesting we apply racial quotas to private employment? If so, that is far too radical a position for almost anyone to swallow. This is best handled through anti-discrimination law, not blunt instruments.

    Nice Strawman Fallacy there.

  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,833
    I'd agree with @Mathsorcerer's assessment again. Stolen land should be returned just like any other form of property, but in the case of stuff like the Native American genocide, so much time has passed that we don't have records or any information about the original event. We don't know which patch of land of which dimensions was stolen by who, from whom, or when, nor do we know the circumstances of the theft.

    The sad thing is that for the vast majority of land in the United States today, the original natives of that land don't even have descendants that could lay claim to the land. They were wiped out.

    MathsorcererbooinyoureyesProont
  • AstroBryGuyAstroBryGuy Member Posts: 3,415
    Zaghoul said:

    It never ceases to amaze me how oppressed people, when finally given actual freedom by their oppressors, are just expected to smile and be grateful to them, and ignore the fact that all the intrinsic benefits of that society have been benefitting ONLY the oppressors for decades if not centuries, and will continue to do so in perpetuity without action. Oppressive societies do, in fact, sometimes have to pay a price for what was done in their name. Whether or not all Germans supported Hitler is immaterial, they all paid the price for allowing him to be in power. The white population of South Africa was on board with systematic oppression of the black population for most of the last century. I suppose this concept is pretty alien to those of us in the US, because we've never, as a society, had to pay the price for anything we have done wrong, outside of military casualties. Frankly, the white population of America are the ones who should be thanking their lucky stars that the African-American population of this country is as patient and level-headed and forgiving as they are given all the shit they have been put through.

    Make no mistake, during the NFL kneeling controversy Trump purposefully inflamed, the main word you heard on the right was that the kneeling African-American players were "ungrateful". Which translates into "why can't you just be happy you aren't slaves anymore and have had civil right for a couple of decades".

    Seems like the Civil War was a pretty darn big price to pay for things America did in the past.
    When the Civil War happened, it wasn't "things America did in the past". It was what America was still actively doing.

  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    edited February 2018
    I think we can agree that there are no easy answers here. This is something where you actually can possibly find valid points on both sides.

    Balrog99semiticgoddessProont
  • screamingpalmscreamingpalm Member Posts: 37
    edited February 2018
    What you have to understand about Bernie Sanders, is that his economic adviser was Stephanie Kelton. What this means, is that he understood how our monetary system actually works, but political realities (and party restraints) left him unable to be truthful. If you really want a sobering revelation of just how much neoliberal propaganda we are all subjected to, I recommend checking out Warren Mosler's free book online "Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy". Or one of Stephanie Kelton's many lectures on youtube ("Angry Birds" is a good one).

    ***Spoiler alert*** Federal taxes do not fund spending, the US cannot "go broke", we don't borrow money from China, budget deficits are non-government (i.e. private sector) surplus, and the "debt" is simply savings accounts at the fed- paying off the debt simply means transferring those dollars to checking accounts.

    Post edited by screamingpalm on
    Balrog99Proont
  • booinyoureyesbooinyoureyes Member Posts: 6,162

    Balrog99 said:

    As a scientist I agree with @FinneousPJ on this. There is likely more at play here than just race. Family dynamics is one factor. Culture is another.

    Even if it was just race in some instances, basing favorable treatment in hiring or acceptance into universities on more general hardship would help those who have suffered on account of their ethnicity/skin color. The problem is that this is apparently very hard to swallow in a culture that is increasingly placing racial identity above all else.
    Economists at Georgia Tech did a study of racial bias in hiring. They responded to help wanted ads in Boston and Chicago with fake resumes. The resumes would be randomly assigned a "white name" or a "black name". Resumes with white-sounding names received 50% more callbacks for interviews than those with black-sounding names. The researchers found that having a white-sounding name was the equivalent of 8 years of experience in terms of the callback rate.

    http://cos.gatech.edu/facultyres/Diversity_Studies/Bertrand_LakishaJamal.pdf
    When did I, in any instance, talk about private employers? The argument you seem to be rebutting was never made.


    We are talking about state entities. Unlike private employers, the government have almost plenary power over people, and therefore has an obligation to treat everyone equally. This is the ideal embodied by the Equal Protection Clause.
    The point is that racial bias is real. It isn't just "family dynamics" or "culture" as has been suggested. The study I cited controlled other factors than perceived racial identity based on the name.

    It would be nice is governments actually treated everyone equally, but governments are organizations made of people, and their biases can affect how that government works (and doesn't work). The Equal Protection Clause took effect in 1868, yet 100 years later, in 1968, Dr. King still had to lead a fight for racial equality. Just because it is the law doesn't mean it is reality, unfortunately.

    Are you suggesting we apply racial quotas to private employment? If so, that is far too radical a position for almost anyone to swallow. This is best handled through anti-discrimination law, not blunt instruments.

    Nice Strawman Fallacy there.
    @AstroBryGuy
    Response to point number 1: I never said anything was a result of family dynamics and culture, so again I don't know what post you are responding too.

    About the EPC, my argument was prescriptive, not descriptive. The government has an obligation to treat people equally. Just because it hasn't in the past is not an argument that it should in the future.



    Response to "point" number 2: That was a general question, but if you prefer being derisive and sarcastic rather than having an adult conversation, then that's fine and I'll stop bothering.

  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    edited March 2018
    So there was another school shooting today. In Dalton Georgia a TEACHER barricaded himself in his classroom and fired a shot(s). The teacher, a social studies teacher who is also the play by play announcer of the football team has been charged with multiple felonies.

    Arm the teachers?

This discussion has been closed.