Ya, but women had to sit there and listen to them complain about it, so they were the real victims. That's got to be worth something.
-
Features
Reparations - Is it time to get the lead out?
- Thread starter Jimmy Higgins
- Start date
Ya, but women had to sit there and listen to them complain about it, so they were the real victims. That's got to be worth something.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,524
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Can we get to the point where reparations would be about institutions put in place to intentionally enslave or impede progress of people of certain races. I'm currently unaware of a female initiative to push for a male only draft service.
So, reparations can only be about slavery? All other cases of some group being wronged and the government being complicit in it are off the table?
Why?
Worldtraveller
Veteran Member
thebeave
Contributor
You guys got it backwards. Its an honor and a privilege to be "chosen" by the government to serve your country and sacrifice your life for it. Women were purposely excluded from ever receiving this honor and privilege, so it is the women that deserve the reparations from the men. Think about it. We live in a patriarchal society, so why would men do something that oppresses themselves? Only morons would do that.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,524
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
A little grammar help. After reading that, you can try and reread what I actually posted.
ruby sparks
Contributor
Imo, it follows that there would in principle be a case for reparations, yes. Men (or indeed their families if resultant harm can be demonstrated) could come forward and say that they were forced, against their will, to kill or injure other humans and/or risk being killed or injured. Poor and less educated men might additionally claim that they were more likely to have to face graver danger, since there is some evidence of a bias in terms of postings to more dangerous areas (and often the poor and less educated were more likely to be forcibly drafted in the first place). Additionally, any bias or discrimination, abuse, bullying or unfairness that was experienced by those who experienced it during the term of the service could also be taken into account (examples might include people of colour, or homosexuals, people of certain religions, maybe even atheists, but anyone in principle). Those punished for desertion (or possibly their families if the deserters were executed) might qualify for additional or separate consideration, as might conscientious objectors who suffered penalties for this.
This is arguably slightly off-topic and possibly whataboutism, but personally, I think it's still within the bounds of reasonable compare and contrast, imo. If it takes over the thread, I might change my opinion.
Last edited:
This is my sentiment too.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,524
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Okay, so let's keep the lead paint in the homes?
Imo, it follows that there would in principle be a case for reparations, yes. Men (or indeed their families if resultant harm can be demonstrated) could come forward and say that they were forced, against their will, to kill or injure other humans and/or risk being killed or injured. Poor and less educated men might additionally claim that they were more likely to have to face graver danger, since there is some evidence of a bias in terms of postings to more dangerous areas (and often the poor and less educated were more likely to be forcibly drafted in the first place). Additionally, any bias or discrimination, abuse, bullying or unfairness that was experienced by those who experienced it during the term of the service could also be taken into account (examples might include people of colour, or homosexuals, people of certain religions, maybe even atheists, but anyone in principle). Those punished for desertion (or possibly their families if the deserters were executed) might qualify for additional or separate consideration, as might conscientious objectors who suffered penalties for this.
This is arguably slightly off-topic and possibly whataboutism, but personally, I think it's still within the bounds of reasonable compare and contrast, imo. If it takes over the thread, I might change my opinion.
I don't think it really counts as whataboutism. That's generally meant as a way to distract from an issue. In this case, however, if people are saying that the descendants of Wronged Group A deserve taxpayer money as compensation for historical oppression, then the question of why Wronged Groups B, C and D don't similarly deserve taxpayer money as compensation seems to me to be valid and on point.
Politesse
Lux Aeterna
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2018
- Messages
- 16,450
- Location
- Tauhalamme/Laquisimas
- Gender
- nonbinary
- Basic Beliefs
- Jedi Wayseeker
Should all men receive reparations for the draft? No, but men who have been drafted certainly can receive compensation for events that happened as a result. Families can receive benefits for those killed in the line of duty. Those subjected to unreasonable conduct while in service, or who were experimented on without their consent, can sue and have successfully done so in the past.
No one has ever recommended nor could possibly enact a system in which anyone who belongs to a "race" or "class" or "gender" or whatever other classification is due compensation for wrongs done to that gender; it is always a discussion of those who either are or are direct descendants of the original victims of a crime. For instance, a Native American tribe that has had land stolen and managed to file a successful claim while the Indian Claims Commission was still in operation had freedom to distribute those funds however they liked, but the funds officially went to the tribe itself as a collective entity, because legally speaking they were the original wronged party, and they weren't just given out to whomever asked; they had to prove that the initiating action was unjust, and the amount of compensation was based on some manner of appraisal of the real material value of the land. In practice, you will always need to prove that you were materially wronged in order to receive monetary compensation. In fact, real victims are generally the first to complain if fakers are trying to take advantage of a situation, and will vigorously object to and report such fraudulent activities if they become aware of them. Hence, in Native communities, generations of in-fighting over matters of "blood quantum" and who can or cannot be considered a tribal member.
No one has ever recommended nor could possibly enact a system in which anyone who belongs to a "race" or "class" or "gender" or whatever other classification is due compensation for wrongs done to that gender; it is always a discussion of those who either are or are direct descendants of the original victims of a crime. For instance, a Native American tribe that has had land stolen and managed to file a successful claim while the Indian Claims Commission was still in operation had freedom to distribute those funds however they liked, but the funds officially went to the tribe itself as a collective entity, because legally speaking they were the original wronged party, and they weren't just given out to whomever asked; they had to prove that the initiating action was unjust, and the amount of compensation was based on some manner of appraisal of the real material value of the land. In practice, you will always need to prove that you were materially wronged in order to receive monetary compensation. In fact, real victims are generally the first to complain if fakers are trying to take advantage of a situation, and will vigorously object to and report such fraudulent activities if they become aware of them. Hence, in Native communities, generations of in-fighting over matters of "blood quantum" and who can or cannot be considered a tribal member.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,524
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Which, if I dare reference the OP, is what I'm trying to accomplish here. Reparations creates a muddled mess of drawing lines and getting people upset or triggered.
Imo, it follows that there would in principle be a case for reparations, yes. Men (or indeed their families if resultant harm can be demonstrated) could come forward and say that they were forced, against their will, to kill or injure other humans and/or risk being killed or injured. Poor and less educated men might additionally claim that they were more likely to have to face graver danger, since there is some evidence of a bias in terms of postings to more dangerous areas (and often the poor and less educated were more likely to be forcibly drafted in the first place). Additionally, any bias or discrimination, abuse, bullying or unfairness that was experienced by those who experienced it during the term of the service could also be taken into account (examples might include people of colour, or homosexuals, people of certain religions, maybe even atheists, but anyone in principle). Those punished for desertion (or possibly their families if the deserters were executed) might qualify for additional or separate consideration, as might conscientious objectors who suffered penalties for this.
This is arguably slightly off-topic and possibly whataboutism, but personally, I think it's still within the bounds of reasonable compare and contrast, imo. If it takes over the thread, I might change my opinion.
I don't think it really counts as whataboutism. That's generally meant as a way to distract from an issue. In this case, however, if people are saying that the descendants of Wronged Group A deserve taxpayer money as compensation for historical oppression, then the question of why Wronged Groups B, C and D don't similarly deserve taxpayer money as compensation seems to me to be valid and on point.
So, can we address the issues without using the word "reparations", and instead deal with problems brought forth by such problems, such as living in homes with poison in the paint. Viable fixes that improve the national infrastructure and reduce poisons in the blood of poor children's brains (potentially helping with crime levels). The government reduced my tax bill a little to put insulation in the home. Can't it help and pay the bill to get poison out of the paint of the homes of poor people?
OK, I had missed the context of what the thread was about. You should probably use the word "repairs" instead because "reparations" generally refers to other stuff.
no, why?
moving forward and not trying to "repair history" logically includes providing a safe environment for everyone, regardless of their race's history.
Why would you think not?
Worldtraveller
Veteran Member
Apparently, if they think it's important, the wealthy class are more than capable of coughing up a lot of money to take care of something (ref: the fucking church that burned down in France).
So it makes it pretty clear that fixing Flint's water, getting rid of lead paint, etc. is simply not seen as important enough to those with the money to do something about it. If that doesn't shout that we need to tax the wealthy a significant amount more than we do, then I don't know what might.
Also, it makes all those wealthy people seem like racist assholes.
So it makes it pretty clear that fixing Flint's water, getting rid of lead paint, etc. is simply not seen as important enough to those with the money to do something about it. If that doesn't shout that we need to tax the wealthy a significant amount more than we do, then I don't know what might.
Also, it makes all those wealthy people seem like racist assholes.
Always the best way to respond I think.
Makes people really believe you've got a well thought out position.
I should make it clear that it is not just conscription I'm talking about, but the obligation to register oneself for selective service or be punished.
Of course, Australia did not need a selective service style list when it conscripted men to go to Vietnam. It's simply an added level of humiliation to have one.
ruby sparks
Contributor
Imo, it follows that there would in principle be a case for reparations, yes. Men (or indeed their families if resultant harm can be demonstrated) could come forward and say that they were forced, against their will, to kill or injure other humans and/or risk being killed or injured. Poor and less educated men might additionally claim that they were more likely to have to face graver danger, since there is some evidence of a bias in terms of postings to more dangerous areas (and often the poor and less educated were more likely to be forcibly drafted in the first place). Additionally, any bias or discrimination, abuse, bullying or unfairness that was experienced by those who experienced it during the term of the service could also be taken into account (examples might include people of colour, or homosexuals, people of certain religions, maybe even atheists, but anyone in principle). Those punished for desertion (or possibly their families if the deserters were executed) might qualify for additional or separate consideration, as might conscientious objectors who suffered penalties for this.
This is arguably slightly off-topic and possibly whataboutism, but personally, I think it's still within the bounds of reasonable compare and contrast, imo. If it takes over the thread, I might change my opinion.
I don't think it really counts as whataboutism. That's generally meant as a way to distract from an issue. In this case, however, if people are saying that the descendants of Wronged Group A deserve taxpayer money as compensation for historical oppression, then the question of why Wronged Groups B, C and D don't similarly deserve taxpayer money as compensation seems to me to be valid and on point.
Yes.
(Although it could also be slightly whataboutism too).
ruby sparks
Contributor
Without entirely or necessarily agreeing with what you said about them being or seeming to be racist assholes, that is an interesting insight, about a building eliciting a more positive response than people. Also, some people feed their dogs actual steak and vegetables (tinned luxury doggie food version) while watching tv appeals for starving children.
Last edited:
ruby sparks
Contributor
Yes, but we shouldn't do it for race reasons. Because housing conditions have nothing to do with race.