I read and understood what you wrote (not that it is original). I explained why I disagree. If you don't agree with my reasoning that's fine, but don't insult my intelligence by implying I don't understand such simple things. You need to think through the implications of trying to make innocent people pay for the crimes of people in the past whose only connection to the modern innocent "privileged" is a vaguely similar physical characteristic. We don't demand that from families of criminals who are alive today, unless the families have money that is directly linked to a crime. And nobody would tolerate punitive measures against the innocent like that even with a direct familial relationship. How much less should we consider compensating the non-oppressed for dubious victimhood links spanning many decades or even hundreds of years? There are valid reasons for these groups to be distinguished besides "systemic oppression" such as physical and cultural differences that affect behavior.
For instance, I commented that there was nothing "natural" about where some people start out in life, owed to centuries of codified discrimination, and you responded with the Pareto distribution.
You can't do that kind of thing and complain about people dismissing you. You have to choose one. Those are the rules. I didn't make them.
>not that it is original
Not sure what you think the value of originality is here (versus, say, fact or reason), but this seems to be part of a pattern wherein you're distracted by irrelevant details.
But, if it's originality you value, then I feel obliged to inform you that there's not a single original thought in the paragraphs you wrote. And, being wrong by way of poor reasoning doesn't make those unoriginal thoughts any more interesting.
>For instance, I commented that there was nothing "natural" about where some people start out in life, owed to centuries of codified discrimination, and you responded with the Pareto distribution.
What is more natural than people being taken care of by their parents, or defending their own resourced and interests? Even animals do this. Humans and other primates have done it since they've existed. Perhaps you have an alternative definition of "natural" that you'd like to share.
I don't accept the premise that white people today benefit uniquely or unforgivably from centuries of codified discrimination. If anything, they are discriminated against and blamed for everything because of what similar looking people in the past did. Their successes throughout history and even in present day are routinely discounted as merely reaping the benefits of conquest, as if there were no positive cultural differences accounting for their relative success. The West has a uniquely innovative and egalitarian culture compared to the rest of the world. Minorities in basically every other part of the world experience more discrimination on average than our minorities do.
>You can't do that kind of thing and complain about people dismissing you. You have to choose one. Those are the rules. I didn't make them.
You literally just made that up lol.
>Not sure what you think the value of originality is here (versus, say, fact or reason), but this seems to be part of a pattern wherein you're distracted by irrelevant details.
Originality entered the conversation because I said that your argument was simple and unoriginal. You wrote it all out as if I'd have never heard or understood that before, when in fact I've heard it for my whole life and it's constantly reiterated in woke pop culture and politics.
I'm not denying the existence of generational wealth or that some people may have accrued financial benefits due to racism. But guess what, people accrue financial benefits due to all kinds of legitimate and illegitimate actions. It is more important for people to not to be blamed for the actions of their families or distant ancestors than for people who feel envious of others over racial animus to be appeased (which I believe is not even possible, as some will keep claiming more and more regardless of any other considerations). If we start accepting that people or groups owe money based on what they look like, based on race relations of the past, you logically have to do that for ALL crimes. There are quite a few white victims of crime who would be owed restitution from families of minority criminals. I know I'm more or less repeating myself but you didn't even attempt to address my points like I did with yours.
>But, if it's originality you value, then I feel obliged to inform you that there's not a single original thought in the paragraphs you wrote. And, being wrong by way of poor reasoning doesn't make those unoriginal thoughts any more interesting.
If you've heard my exact objections to your arguments before and don't agree, I think it is you who is guilty of inferior reasoning (with all due respect). The whole "let's take from group 1 to give to group 2, because group 1 resembles the oppressors of yore" attitude is a symptom of first-order thinking if not malicious intent.
Respectfully, it is impossible to engage in thoughtful discussion with you, for a number of reasons.
1. Your logic breaks down very quickly in simplistic, obvious ways, but you are sure of it. So, anyone seeking genuine, thoughtful discussion is immediately put off, as it's clear they'll spend 80% of the discussion pointing out the flaws in your thinking, where you haven't addressed the salient points, etc. It's equally clear that it won't matter.
2. Your thinking itself is simplistic and child-like. You see in black and white (no pun intended), so are incapable of reasoning about complexity in the world or having a discussion that involves nuance;
3. But your black and white reasoning is laced with bias that you also cannot see. You know nothing of epistemology or self-questioning or challenging beliefs (your own or others').
4. You don't follow humor or irony. It appears to be completely lost on you. I'm sure you'd reply defensively with some commentary on the quality of the humor but, of course, that would miss the point too.
5. You are transparent without being aware of it.
In short, the effect here is that "fairness" for you flows in one direction, which you justify with poor logic, riddled with inconsistencies that are rationalized away by your biases.
Given your initial comments, I didn't expect to change your mind or even slightly nudge the door ajar. I responded with only the hope that my reply might provide something for passersby to quietly consider.
But, your subsequent replies have been of even poorer quality than I could have imagined, and increasingly so. Take care.
Not the original poster you're replying to, but this reads like a frustrated meta-analysis of someone's opinions, dismissed with ad-hominems, and avoidant of possibly uncomfortable counter-points.
It's more of a comparative literature analysis than a debate reply, if I am honest.
You also didn't reply to almost any of the points made against DEI above, sticking to pre-existing talking points.
You write remarkably similarly to OP and your "logic" follows closely, including your commitment to precisely the same fallacies and your complaints that no one wants to waste their time engaging with voluminous talking points, backed by poor reasoning.
Still, my response explained exactly what was wrong with OP's comments and why it was futile to engage. With proper reasoning ability, one could overlay each of my points with OP's, and understand how they were being directly refuted. You also have missing that fact in common with OP, as well as a very specific brand of mental laziness.
Likewise, your underlying beliefs themselves are the same, as expressed here and elsewhere. And, you were impressively quick to reply to my comment, given that the thread is somehat nested and obscure.
If you are not OP, in fact, then you are functionally. So, let's make this quick: consider my prior comments apply to you as well.
It's not me. I've had bouts of suspicion when I've been addressed by multiple people as well but I guess we just underestimate the odds of someone getting interested in an ongoing thread. I still haven't read all the comments yet but I wanted to drop that here, and also suggest that you just disagree with me because you have different values and/or don't understand the logical consequences of what you're agitating for.
By the way:
>Given your initial comments, I didn't expect to change your mind or even slightly nudge the door ajar. I responded with only the hope that my reply might provide something for passersby to quietly consider.
It seems that a passerby did come along as you predicted and they think I'm more in the right than you are.
Respectfully, I think you are deliberately refusing to acknowledge the thoroughly sound logical arguments I've put forward about the true consequences of what you're proposing.
>Your thinking itself is simplistic and child-like. You see in black and white (no pun intended), so are incapable of reasoning about complexity in the world or having a discussion that involves nuance;
I recognize that historical race relations create a complex emotional landscape for people who are similar in appearance to oppressed people in the past. But that is part of life. We need to move forward and not create more problems by taking from the innocent to prop up non-victims.
>You don't follow humor or irony. It appears to be completely lost on you. I'm sure you'd reply defensively with some commentary on the quality of the humor but, of course, that would miss the point too.
I didn't detect any humor in your writing, besides the original snarky comment that started this. And just because it's snarky doesn't mean that you don't mean to actually insinuate awful things about people.
>You are transparent without being aware of it.
As far as I'm concerned, a majority of people blaming white people for everything are hucksters. But there are quite a few misguided souls who truly bought the lie that there's a huge scheme out there to oppress them because of what they look like. There are always a few racists in the world, but at this point I think most of them (even in our "majority white" country) are not white.
>But, your subsequent replies have been of even poorer quality than I could have imagined, and increasingly so. Take care.
I imagine you have been drinking this whole time and you're at the bottom of the bottle now and really losing your grip on reality. Take care.
