California Doing California Things

[bilby]

You're the one who jumped right to malicious accusations and went off on a rant of personal insults uncalled for and unprompted.

Well, one of us was.

We may differ on which. That can be left as an exercise for the readers.

<Deleted By moderator> You accused me, personally, of being a sucky boss, of infantilizing my employees, all to make my life easier. This is not true.

Indeed, it is not true that I accused you, personally, of this. Your decision to take it personally was entirely out of my hands.

What the fuck am I supposed to do, stage a rebellion on behalf of my handful of employees and expect that we get special treatment?

They are your employees; You can and should treat them as individuals, and as adults.

Don't act like you're in the right for the malicious and scornful shit you CHOSE to say about me, based on nothing but your own fevered imagination.

Well, certainly somebody's imagination was involved.

 

[Emily Lake]

Bullshit. If you think that won't happen, then you have your head in the sand. It's an easily foreseeable and extremely likely outcome. I would even go so far as to say it's the DESIRED outcome.

If you had evidence, you'd be citing it.

How is anyone supposed to have evidence of what's going to happen in a novel situation??

But we can see negatives, we see no positives. All we see is throwing gas on the racial fire. You are not going to solve racism with gasoline!

Whereas denialism will calm everyone down? In what fucking universe has "justice delayed until justice can be denied" ever resulted in the pacification of an oppressed people? Give me a single example of a real life historical situation in which this strategy actually worked.

I have not met a single Black Californian who is mad about the reparations project. Skeptical, maybe. Not mad. But you want me to believe that if a few tony companies publish some bullshit reports on their history in two years, Watts will be in flames again by sundown or something? Stuff and nonsense! Black people don't get angry when their government attempts social repair. Black people get angry when the police start murdering innocent people. That is what has led to every so called "race riot" in the state's history. Every single one. Justice denied, not justice offered, is what "fans flames".

Or do you mean that the Whites of California are going to riot? If so, I doubt it. We're lazy as fuck for the most part, and around half of us are decent people who actually want justice and honesty from our government. Quite a few of us are Latino and wouldn't mind a few more investigations opened up into the time period in question, when a lot of our family's land title or citizenship was being erased under unclear circumstances.

I really do think you might be naive.

First off, of course black californians aren't mad about the reparations project, why would they be? They've been promised that the government will give them money to make up for centuries of racism. Whether the racism accusation is true or not is irrelevant - I've seldom met someone who is angry about getting free money.

But let's actually think this through. Because you've already acknowledged that reparations aren't going to actually be paid. So best case scenario: All these companies spend tens of thousands of dollars to research things from a couple of centuries ago that have a high likelihood of no longer existing in the first place.

So some companies will diligently find out what they can and turn it in to the committee. Some companies won't be able to find anything because the records have gone away in the intervening centuries. What happens next?

• The committee says "These companies profited from slavery 200 years ago" and the much of the population gets angry at those companies - those companies are abusive and will be subjected to anger and public demonization.
• The committee says "These other companies didn't disclose anything" and much of the population gets angry at those companies hiding their historical abuse of black people.
• Some companies won't have existed that far back, and maybe if they're lucky the committee will say "these companies are innocent of this specific thing"

So what comes after that? You've already said reparations aren't going to be paid. So how do you think that's going to be communicated to the black californians who've been tacitly promised a payout?

Do you think the committee is going to say "Well, we decided this isn't a good idea and you aren't owed reparations"? I think not, it would make the committee look bad, it would make the democrats who started the committee look bad, and it would make them all targets.

Or do you think they're going to spin it to their advantage? They could very feasibly say "we can't pay reparations that you're owed because these companies aren't cooperating" or "we can't pay the reparations that you're owed because the companies don't have enough in liquid cash to do it".

More likely to me is that they'll propose a bill to increase taxes on those companies for something that happened far in the past... and that bill won't pass. They know it won't pass - they expect it not to pass. They don't really want it to pass. Passing the bill isn't the point in the first place. Because we all know that republicans in general wouldn't support that bill... and there will be just enough democrats who don't support it to make sure it won't pass.

So why the dog and pony show? That one's fairly straightforward. When the bill doesn't pass... then the democrats can say "those evil racist republicans won't let it pass, they're the ones keeping you from getting the reparations that you're owed". It lets democrats continue to exploit racial tension and drive black voters to support democrats on the empty promise that they'll fix the horrible racism that republicans are forcing on black people.

They're never going to deliver on their promise. It would be counterproductive if they did. They get much, much greater benefit from being able to manipulate public sentiment to frame themselves as the good guys and the republicans as the bad guys.

It's propaganda 101.

 

[Emily Lake]

It’s unjust to seek punitive action against people for crimes they didn’t commit, and weren’t even crimes at the time they occurred.

I agree. So does everyone else. That's only happened in your tortured fantasies, not in real life. No one is getting arrested for crimes they did not commit, and if they were so arrested, the court system would correctly rule that detention improper and illegal. You're so far out in La-La Land you've lost all perspective on how American law even works.

She said "punitive action", not "arrest". You're arguing a strawman.

So is she? No punitive action for individuals who did not commit a crime is being pursued, no has been proposed.

Again, you're arguing a strawman. This time "individual".

Turn it around: what constructive use can be made of the information?

Even more to the point: what crime?

 

[Emily Lake]

You can't. But I still gonna want my car back even if the thief who stole it had a heart attack after. It shouldn't go to his kid as an inheritance

Great. So what happens if you great great grandpa sold a car to someone else's great great grandpa, and it was a legal transaction at the time... but the laws have now changed so that he wouldn't have been allowed to sell that car today?

Do you think you now have a claim on the car that Bob legally inherited from his dad, who legally inherited it from Bob's grandpa, who legally inherited it from Bob's great grandpa who legally purchased it from your great great grandpa?

 

[Politesse]

Do you think you now have a claim on the car that Bob legally inherited from his dad, who legally inherited it from Bob's grandpa, who legally inherited it from Bob's great grandpa who legally purchased it from your great great grandpa?

No, but the theft isn't "justice", letting it go unsolved isn't "law", and if the government assisted in the theft, it's entirely reasonable to hold them accountable for their role and ask for transparency in asking what happened and why it happened.

 

[Politesse]

Even more to the point: what crime?

You are a walking demonstration of why laws are needed, I'll give you that. Jesus H Christ.

 

[Emily Lake]

You're the one who jumped right to malicious accusations and went off on a rant of personal insults uncalled for and unprompted.

Well, one of us was.

We may differ on which. That can be left as an exercise for the readers.

It's absolutely you being an asshole. You accused me, personally, of being a sucky boss, of infantilizing my employees, all to make my life easier. This is not true.

Indeed, it is not true that I accused you, personally, of this. Your decision to take it personally was entirely out of my hands.

Pretty sure anyone with a high-school level reading comprehension would read your post the same way I did:

... because sucky bosses like you infantilise your workforce, and genuinely believe that collective punishment (and indeed making everybody feel unhappy and badly mistreated) is appropriate and justified, as long as it makes your life easier and increases productivity?

You can try to backpedal and pretend that when you said "like you" and "your" you didn't actually mean me, but that takes some serious mental somersaults and cartwheels to get there. Or you could simply fess up to the fact that you jumped to an incorrect conclusion and got pissy about it when you could have behaved in a more civil fashion and avoided the entire mess.

What the fuck am I supposed to do, stage a rebellion on behalf of my handful of employees and expect that we get special treatment?

They are your employees; You can and should treat them as individuals, and as adults.

I do. Why are you assuming that I don't?
Again, this is you making a malicious assumption about me, personally. You know, right after you pretend that you weren't talking about me personally, and that I'm in the wrong for taking it personally.

Don't act like you're in the right for the malicious and scornful shit you CHOSE to say about me, based on nothing but your own fevered imagination.

Well, certainly somebody's imagination was involved.

You can pretend you didn't say what you said and didn't mean what you meant... but you're unconvincing. The fact is that you maliciously attacked me personally, then you want to pretend that I'm in the wrong for recognizing your poor behavior as what it is.

 

[Emily Lake]

Do you think you now have a claim on the car that Bob legally inherited from his dad, who legally inherited it from Bob's grandpa, who legally inherited it from Bob's great grandpa who legally purchased it from your great great grandpa?

No, but the theft isn't "justice", letting it go unsolved isn't "law", and if the government assisted in the theft, it's entirely reasonable to hold them accountable for their role and ask for transparency in asking what happened and why it happened.

I think you should be expected to make ammends for every crime any of your ancestors going back 5+ generations ever got away with.

Let's start an audit of your entire family history, and hold you accountable for someone else's poor behavior. Because apparently that's what you think justice is.

 

[Emily Lake]

Even more to the point: what crime?

You are a walking demonstration of why laws are needed, I'll give you that. Jesus H Christ.

Poli, I need you to use your brain on this. I know you have one; employ it.

It was not a crime at the time. It wasn't against the law at the time.

It's a law now, and nobody is breaking that law now.

Are you putting the pieces together now?

 

[Politesse]

Bullshit. If you think that won't happen, then you have your head in the sand. It's an easily foreseeable and extremely likely outcome. I would even go so far as to say it's the DESIRED outcome.

If you had evidence, you'd be citing it.

How is anyone supposed to have evidence of what's going to happen in a novel situation??

But we can see negatives, we see no positives. All we see is throwing gas on the racial fire. You are not going to solve racism with gasoline!

Whereas denialism will calm everyone down? In what fucking universe has "justice delayed until justice can be denied" ever resulted in the pacification of an oppressed people? Give me a single example of a real life historical situation in which this strategy actually worked.

I have not met a single Black Californian who is mad about the reparations project. Skeptical, maybe. Not mad. But you want me to believe that if a few tony companies publish some bullshit reports on their history in two years, Watts will be in flames again by sundown or something? Stuff and nonsense! Black people don't get angry when their government attempts social repair. Black people get angry when the police start murdering innocent people. That is what has led to every so called "race riot" in the state's history. Every single one. Justice denied, not justice offered, is what "fans flames".

Or do you mean that the Whites of California are going to riot? If so, I doubt it. We're lazy as fuck for the most part, and around half of us are decent people who actually want justice and honesty from our government. Quite a few of us are Latino and wouldn't mind a few more investigations opened up into the time period in question, when a lot of our family's land title or citizenship was being erased under unclear circumstances.

I really do think you might be naive.

First off, of course black californians aren't mad about the reparations project, why would they be? They've been promised that the government will give them money to make up for centuries of racism. Whether the racism accusation is true or not is irrelevant - I've seldom met someone who is angry about getting free money.

But let's actually think this through. Because you've already acknowledged that reparations aren't going to actually be paid. So best case scenario: All these companies spend tens of thousands of dollars to research things from a couple of centuries ago that have a high likelihood of no longer existing in the first place.

So some companies will diligently find out what they can and turn it in to the committee. Some companies won't be able to find anything because the records have gone away in the intervening centuries. What happens next?

• The committee says "These companies profited from slavery 200 years ago" and the much of the population gets angry at those companies - those companies are abusive and will be subjected to anger and public demonization.
• The committee says "These other companies didn't disclose anything" and much of the population gets angry at those companies hiding their historical abuse of black people.
• Some companies won't have existed that far back, and maybe if they're lucky the committee will say "these companies are innocent of this specific thing"

So what comes after that? You've already said reparations aren't going to be paid. So how do you think that's going to be communicated to the black californians who've been tacitly promised a payout?

Do you think the committee is going to say "Well, we decided this isn't a good idea and you aren't owed reparations"? I think not, it would make the committee look bad, it would make the democrats who started the committee look bad, and it would make them all targets.

Or do you think they're going to spin it to their advantage? They could very feasibly say "we can't pay reparations that you're owed because these companies aren't cooperating" or "we can't pay the reparations that you're owed because the companies don't have enough in liquid cash to do it".

More likely to me is that they'll propose a bill to increase taxes on those companies for something that happened far in the past... and that bill won't pass. They know it won't pass - they expect it not to pass. They don't really want it to pass. Passing the bill isn't the point in the first place. Because we all know that republicans in general wouldn't support that bill... and there will be just enough democrats who don't support it to make sure it won't pass.

So why the dog and pony show? That one's fairly straightforward. When the bill doesn't pass... then the democrats can say "those evil racist republicans won't let it pass, they're the ones keeping you from getting the reparations that you're owed". It lets democrats continue to exploit racial tension and drive black voters to support democrats on the empty promise that they'll fix the horrible racism that republicans are forcing on black people.

They're never going to deliver on their promise. It would be counterproductive if they did. They get much, much greater benefit from being able to manipulate public sentiment to frame themselves as the good guys and the republicans as the bad guys.

It's propaganda 101.

You're not wrong about the Democrats and how cynical they are about all this. Gavin Neesom does not give a fuck about reparations, this has always been true and it will be true of whoever succeeds him. But that doesn't make it right to bury the past and ignore social injustice in the present. And as for your fevered imagination about what Black people are like, what they want, and how they will react to things, it is clearly not based on ever having talked about any of this stuff with actual African American people.

 

[Politesse]

Let's start an audit of your entire family history, and hold you accountable for someone else's poor behavior. Because apparently that's what you think justice is.

Why do you keep repeating the same false claim over and over, that the government is holding individuals accountable for other individuals' sins? Do you think we can't see that you are misrepresenting the content of the bill? Anyone can read the law for themselves and see that no individuals are being held accountable for anything, let alone the sins of their biological ancestors, which is not how corporate employment works.

 

[TSwizzle]

But that doesn't make it right to bury the past and ignore social injustice in the present.

This is so silly.

 

[Politesse]

I do in fact have three slave owners in the family, at the fifth generation. And two enslaved persons, at the sixth, along with many more slave owners, such that it becomes difficult to count at that point. Which I know, in part, because my family does not believe in covering up or denying the past, any more than I do. You shouldn't, either. The philosophy of the censor is morally reprehensible. You care more about not being held responsible for crimes than you do about the crimes, which you glibly dismiss as "legal at the time" as though that lessened the horrific impact of human trafficking, murder, and rape in any way whatsoever.

 

[Politesse]

My grandmother's first husband beat the ever loving hell out of her for a year and a half until she divorced him. At the time, it was legal for him to beat the crap out of his wife.

You hypocrite! How dare you divulge that information about him, while demanding that your government cover up much worse crimes committed by other men?

 

[Politesse]

Have you stepped back and asked yourself why the reparations committee wants corporations to research whether or not they had any involvement in slavery more than a century and a half ago?

Why are they asking for this in the first place?

Because their work has been greatly hindered by suppression of information about this time period, under the thin excuse of those records still supposedly being propietary information 170 years after the fact. That's not a secret or conspiracy, anyone involved would tell you the same.

I think many members of the committee DO think said companies ought to be boycotted, but that is both unlikely, and also not a part of this law.

 

[Emily Lake]

You're not wrong about the Democrats and how cynical they are about all this. Gavin Neesom does not give a fuck about reparations, this has always been true and it will be true of whoever succeeds him.

So I'm right about the cynical and exploitatious nature of the entire undertaking... but I'm supposed to support it anyway?

But that doesn't make it right to bury the past

Nobody is burying the past. It was buried over a century ago, and I see no good reason to exhume it.

and ignore social injustice in the present.

What social injustice is being ignored? And how does disinterring the skeletons of two hundred years ago address that in any fashion whatsoever?

And as for your fevered imagination about what Black people are like, what they want, and how they will react to things, it is clearly not based on ever having talked about any of this stuff with actual African American people.

Do you mean black people like almost all of my family? Or do you mean african americans like my neighbors and coworkers who immigrated from Kenya, Nigeria, and Ethiopia?

I know it's inconvenient for you to remember that I'm not a racist, but at least stop making stupid assumptions.

 

[Emily Lake]

Let's start an audit of your entire family history, and hold you accountable for someone else's poor behavior. Because apparently that's what you think justice is.

Why do you keep repeating the same false claim over and over, that the government is holding individuals accountable for other individuals' sins? Do you think we can't see that you are misrepresenting the content of the bill? Anyone can read the law for themselves and see that no individuals are being held accountable for anything, let alone the sins of their biological ancestors, which is not how corporate employment works.

It doesn't alter the concept itself, and the underlying dynamic. It doesn't change the observable fact that people today are being asked to make amends for things they did not do, and which were not illegal at the time they happened... which was over 150 years ago. You're still supporting visiting the sins of other people way in the past on people today... even if only "collectively" punishing them.

 

[Politesse]

Let's start an audit of your entire family history, and hold you accountable for someone else's poor behavior. Because apparently that's what you think justice is.

Why do you keep repeating the same false claim over and over, that the government is holding individuals accountable for other individuals' sins? Do you think we can't see that you are misrepresenting the content of the bill? Anyone can read the law for themselves and see that no individuals are being held accountable for anything, let alone the sins of their biological ancestors, which is not how corporate employment works.

It doesn't alter the concept itself, and the underlying dynamic. It doesn't change the observable fact that people today are being asked to make amends for things they did not do, and which were not illegal at the time they happened... which was over 150 years ago. You're still supporting visiting the sins of other people way in the past on people today... even if only "collectively" punishing them.

No, I'm not. You can say it twenty times or a hundred, and it won't become one whit more true for the repetition.

 

[Politesse]

Do you mean black people like almost all of my family? Or do you mean african americans like my neighbors and coworkers who immigrated from Kenya, Nigeria, and Ethiopia?

If you're talking to them at all, you obviously aren't listening to a word they say. You talk about Blacks as though they were all mindless puppets waiting on the word of Gavin fucking Newsom of all people to tell them what to think. Pawns of the Democratic Party. They are not. Fully one half of Black folks aren't registered Democrats at all, they certainly aren't stooges for party politics as you allege.

Also, casually excluding them from your personal definition of "the government", every time you protest government accountability as though asking the federal government to pay its historical debts were an assault on the so-called white race exclusively.

I'd be incredibly insulted if you were my cousin, and you talked about me the way you talk about Black folk. Have you no respect at all for your own kin?

 

[Emily Lake]

I do in fact have three slave owners in the family, at the fifth generation. And two enslaved persons, at the sixth, along with many more slave owners, such that it becomes difficult to count at that point. Which I know, in part, because my family does not believe in covering up or denying the past, any more than I do.

You horrible person, benefitting from slavery!

You shouldn't, either.

You don't seem to understand that I'm not "covering up" anything. Wallowing in the past and how horrible it was doesn't move forward though.

The philosophy of the censor is morally reprehensible.

Nothing is being censored. Obligating people to put their family's sins on display now, despite them having occurred in the distant past, is nothing more than modern-day struggle sessions that accomplish nothing good.

You care more about not being held responsible for crimes

I didn't commit any crimes, Poli. Why should I be held responsible for something I didn't do? Why should YOU be held responsible for something that you didn't do, and had absolutely no possible way to influence?

than you do about the crimes, which you glibly dismiss as "legal at the time" as though that lessened the horrific impact of human trafficking, murder, and rape in any way whatsoever.

I care about the horrible things that happened in the past. I care very much about never letting them happen again. Oddly, for me that involves speaking out against current human trafficking, current slavery, current rape, current murder, and acting to stop them and prevent them.

What it doesn't involve is me supporting a pointless effort to dig up dirt when the only plausible purpose of such digging is to increase racial tension for political gain.

I don't glibly dismiss it. You keep calling it a crime, and approaching it as if punishment is due for those crimes. But they weren't crimes when they happened - that's the part that you seem to be missing. And it's important. We're not talking about criminals - we're talking about people who were behaving in an accepted way for their time. That's not an acceptable way now, and it shouldn't be - I'm very happy that it's not an acceptable way now (in the west at least).

But you can't retroactively rewrite history based on modern norms.

Look, please think about this. Step back from racism and reparations, and try it on a different norm altogether. Two hundred years ago, it was fairly common for kids to have jobs. Not all kids, but quite a few. It was legal for a 12 year old to have a job and work long hours. Especially if those kids were from lower class families. It's not legal now - now it's considered abusive and exploitative, and we oppose child labor in the developed world and we seek to eliminate it around the globe.

What beneficial purpose would it serve to require companies today to go through their books from 200 years ago and disclose whether they ever profited from child labor? What good would come of that? Does it make sense to you to hold those companies accountable and responsible for having employed children in the early 1800s? Would you frame it as "covering up crimes" when it was legal and common practice at the time? I don't think it makes any sense, and I think the only plausible outcome of such efforts is bad.

Similarly, 200 years ago women weren't allowed to have independent jobs, bank accounts, or own property in their own names. We weren't allowed to vote. That would be illegal now, and I'm very happy that it's illegal. I want to make it illegal to keep women as property across the entire globe. But I also recognize that it was legal and common practice at the time. I don't consider men as a whole to be "criminals" if they're descended from men who kept women as property. I don't think anything good can possibly come from that sort of an outlook - only bad, only increased tension between men and women.