California Doing California Things

[Politesse]

The USA seems to me to be even deeper in denial than Australia - though that may just be an artefact of distance.

I would hesitate to characterize all my countrymen with the same brush on this. Education varies a lot by state, and with it, so does willingness to face the past. Not many Americans are as comfortable acknowledging our internments, captivities, and mass murders as are most Germans, though, that's for sure. Denialism reaches some absurd heights, as you see readily in this thread, and the alt-right movement has supplied a lot of people with false narratives to pull out when they feel guilty or threatened. All Californians are supposed to learn in school about the state's complicated history with enslavement, but you see the result of that. Teachers will refuse to teach what they themselves would rather not know...

In the whole, I have found that both Aussies and Americans have a tendency to overestimate their knowledge of the past. Like, they know "very bad things happened in history", but are often rather vague on the details, especially where their local situation is concerned.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Companies are not required to keep records like you're asking them to produce. Thus it's a big research project that very well might not even be possible. And it serves no purpose.

Then they'll report that, and that will be the end of it.

No, because they are required to try to find it out.

And note that this is an infinite project, how do you prove you looked at everything?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Uh huh.

What do you think is the PURPOSE of making companies publish if 150 years ago someone who worked there made money off of slavery?

It frees up and makes public knowledge that has been hidden behind propietary privilege until now.

I note that the specific case you propose there would fall outside the scope of the law. They are required to report on the company's use of chattel slavery and resources associated with it, not a personalized account of every individual who ever worked there.

It's still a sins of the father situation.

Do you really believe, in your heart of hearts, that justice for a crime has somehow been accomplished when the original perpetrator dies? That the justice system can achieve a 100% success rate by simply refusing to investigate accusations until all involved parties are dead?

How do you punish a dead perpetrator?

And your 100% "success" rate would be a 0% failure rate. 0/0 isn't 100%.

 

[Politesse]

Uh huh.

What do you think is the PURPOSE of making companies publish if 150 years ago someone who worked there made money off of slavery?

It frees up and makes public knowledge that has been hidden behind propietary privilege until now.

I note that the specific case you propose there would fall outside the scope of the law. They are required to report on the company's use of chattel slavery and resources associated with it, not a personalized account of every individual who ever worked there.

It's still a sins of the father situation.

Do you really believe, in your heart of hearts, that justice for a crime has somehow been accomplished when the original perpetrator dies? That the justice system can achieve a 100% success rate by simply refusing to investigate accusations until all involved parties are dead?

How do you punish a dead perpetrator?

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.

You did not answer my question.

 

[Politesse]

No, because they are required to try to find it out.

Yes, they are. It's not a high bar.

And note that this is an infinite project, how do you prove you looked at everything?

It is not an "infinite project", it is a one time report, and no one is required to prove that they have "looked at everything", whatever that means. They are required to swear an affidavit that they've done their due diligence to look through the records that they have.

 

[robnisch]

The GI Bill and Racial Inequality: How Black Veterans Were Denied Their Benefits

When World War II ended, millions of American soldiers returned home as heroes. To help them transition to civilian life, the U.S. government passed one of the most transformative pieces of legislation in history—the GI Bill of 1944.This law promised veterans benefits like home loans, college...

www.obliterhate.org

Not sure this has been brought up before.
For my dad's generation the GI bill made a middle-class life possible.
Add redlining to this.
This is not old history like slavery; this affected a lot of people alive today.

 

[Politesse]

This has got to be one of the funniest editorial "endorsements" I have ever read:

Endorsement: California’s governor race is a choice between unelectable and underwhelming

"Becerra is dry as the Mojave. But he’s experienced, with one of the best resumes of anyone to have run for this office in some time ...

Californians deserve better than they have seen from Becerra thus far on the campaign trail. We hope that after his inevitable victory, state residents don’t get lost in the swirl of national political intrigue leading up to 2028 and stay on top of his administration.

California is your home. Keep an eye on it."

That would be their official endorsement of Mr. Underwhelming. The whole thing is throwing epic lebels of shade at both candidates, Hilton for living in a hopelessly unrealistic fantasy land spun from rage, uppers, and right-wing delusion, Becerra for having no discernible viewpoint or plans whatsoever.

Our country is, as my students would put it, "cooked". Half of our politicians are throwing fuel on the fire, while the other half opposes them by turning the spit every so often.

 

[TSwizzle]

What a sad state of affairs.

The once Golden State receives “F” in CATO Institute State Rankings.
California Governor Gavin Newsom, who so desperately wants to be the next U.S. President, is ranked the 48th worst governor in the country, according to a new report by The CATO Institute. He is only slightly less awful than Hawaii Governor Josh Green, and New York Governor Kathy Hochul. The entire State of California didn’t fare well either on CATO’s freedom scale – the Once Golden State was ranked 44th, receiving an “F” grade, or only 1.95 out of 10 possible points, in the overall freedom score. California’s Governor Gavin Newsom brought home the Booby Prize, only getting 22.23% of the overall freedom percentage, a dismal 0.95 out of 10 possible points in overall freedom score, and a “F” grade. Even worse yet, California was ranked 48th in “economic freedom.” But wait! Isn’t California the 4th largest economy in the world, as we are frequently reminded by American’s 48th worst governor?

News

Newsom should definitely run for president.

 

[Politesse]

Oh no, not the CATO Institute! Oh, I so wanted to be loved by them.

Even worse yet, California was ranked 48th in “economic freedom.” But wait! Isn’t California the 4th largest economy in the world, as we are frequently reminded by American’s 48th worst governor?

Those two facts, taken together, should really raise some questions in your mind about whether the extravagant claims made by laissez faire capitalists actually hold water. It's not just California; the other three largest economies in the world (China, Germany, and the US) are likewise regulated by a government, in ways the CATO Institute openly despises. It's almost as though instituting minimal regulatory standards does not, in fact, curb the accumulation of wealth in the way that they would claim.

 

[Bomb#20]

What a sad state of affairs.

The once Golden State receives “F” in CATO Institute State Rankings.
California Governor Gavin Newsom, who so desperately wants to be the next U.S. President, is ranked the 48th worst governor in the country, ... Isn’t California the 4th largest economy in the world, as we are frequently reminded by American’s 48th worst governor?

News

Newsom should definitely run for president.

Um, there are 50 governors. So that would make the 48th worst governor the, uh, [just a sec while I do some higher math...] the 3rd best. A presidential run wouldn't seem out of the question...

 

[Emily Lake]

So now everyone has to go into the office once a week - even those who were highly effective working from home without supervision. Everyone is unhappy about it, everyone feels like they're being punished for someone else's poor behavior. But productivity and responsiveness has increased back to a level where we can address the behavior of outliers as a performance issue. It sucks, but... "this is why we can't have nice things".

... 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?

This is you being an asshole in an unecessary way.

On the contrary, it is me being angry in a very necessary way indeed. In stark contrast to your contentless tirade in your next post.

<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. It wasn't my decision, it was never my employees who were the problems in the first place.

But you feel somehow righteously justified in jumping all the way to accusing me of being a bad person for the "crime" of understanding the situation and the dynamics that led to the executives making the decision they made. 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?

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. You can fuck right off with that bullshit.

You're supposed to be a grown-ass adult. Act like one.

Yep, that's exactly why we can't have nice things.

And assholes like you don't seem to understand human and group dynamics. You also seem to relish making malicious assumptions and being a dickhead for no good fucking reason.

Or you could grow the fuck up and have a discussion like an adult rather than a petty child.

... says the person trying to defend their active decision to make "Everyone … unhappy about it, everyone feel … like they're being punished for someone else's poor behavior". That's indefensible assholery, and worse, it is the condition under which vast numbers of employees labour.

<Deleted By moderator> You know nothing and you seem to feel that your imagination justifies your abhorrent behavior.

 

[Emily Lake]

One of us is trying to do just that. The other is you.

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

Do you own a mirror?

 

[Emily Lake]

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!

It kind of depends on whether the fire is a useful tool for their political aims. I'm not convinced that democrats actually want to solve racism. Pretty sure they desperately need racism to be alive and thriving in order to maintain power.

 

[Emily Lake]

Because it sure as fuck isn't going to be a bunch of people saying "oh, well, that's fine, no biggie".

No, because most people are unaware that this law even exists, and they certainly won't be reading the hundreds of reports it generates.

That's not how reality works.

Someone will know. Someone will look at those reports and use them to demonize businesses they don't like.

And someone will publicize that information and get it into the news, who will then capitalize off of it by increasing outrage and views... which will result in a companies being hounded and criticised and facing public shaming for things that happened five generations ago.

I'm not a fan of struggle sessions, but I understand that a certain kind of ideology gains a lot of political cache from them.

 

[Emily Lake]

Companies are not required to keep records like you're asking them to produce. Thus it's a big research project that very well might not even be possible. And it serves no purpose.

You're being too generous - it definitely serves a purpose. It's just not a socially beneficial purpose.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

I don't know if you're naive, or if you lack the ability to extrapolate, or if you're willfully obtuse in support of the most likely outcome.

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?

 

[Emily Lake]

Keeping denying that the only use for this information is provoking racial conflict doesn't make it go away.

Because that's insane. There's no "race war" in California, no "race riots".

Are you even aware that you're the only person going on about a race war? I said racial conflict - and there is definitely racial conflict in California, and indeed throughout the entire US.

Democrats are banking on that racial conflict continuing.

No "punitive action".

Not yet at least. But WHY do you think this bill was put forth by the REPARATIONS committee?

There is a need for justice, tranparency, and reform.

What justice comes from making companies dig up records from a century and a half ago that most likely don't even exist anymore? It's not transparency, nothing is being hidden - it's a fishing expedition.

And what reform do you think is going to follow? What reform is needed and what form do you think that would take?

Concepts all Americans understand and value, at least when applied to thenselves.

I think there's a fairly substantial chasm between the concept and the way this is being approached. I don't think there's any feasible way that this produces justice, nor does it lead to reform of any sort. And again, it's not transparency at all to require companies to go research things from a couple hundred years ago.

 

[Emily Lake]

Companies are not required to keep records like you're asking them to produce. Thus it's a big research project that very well might not even be possible. And it serves no purpose.

Then they'll report that, and that will be the end of it.

Oh bless your heart. You're very sweet.

 

[Emily Lake]

Do you really believe, in your heart of hearts, that justice for a crime has somehow been accomplished when the original perpetrator dies? That the justice system can achieve a 100% success rate by simply refusing to investigate accusations until all involved parties are dead?

Do you believe, in your heart of hearts, that justice is accomplished by putting forth punishment for something that wasn't a crime when it occurred, and when the punishment is enacted upon someone who was never the perpetrator?

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. What possible good can come from punishing my eldest aunt for what her father did when she was an infant? How does that even make the teensiest bit of sense?