LogFAQs > #964627367

adjl posted...

It's more "the problem isn't actually fixed even though you took away the immediate causes, so keep trying to fix it."

If you ever defined terms that actually resolve the problem, there'd be anything to debate. As is, that's just a claim on your end that's unsubstantiated.

adjl posted...

If you have lasting damages from that they have not been adequately compensated? Yes. Absolutely. If not, then you're creating a false equivalency and your point can be safely dismissed as being nonsense.

Can't call it a false equivalency when both cases are adequately compensated. You may not be happy with the end result, but you have failed to establish any terms any sane person could remotely be expected to meet, and others are happy.

adjl posted...

The whole point is that, on a societal scale, some groups have experienced such significant transgressions that they remain significantly disadvantaged for it. We're not talking about individuals and the differences between them, we're talking about populations, where statistically significant differences do exist.

The entirety of working class in the world are the working class due to other people doing significant transgressions, they remain significantly disadvantaged for it. It's not reasonable to rob everybody born middle to upper class for being such, they're not doing anything to you.

We hate on Bezos and such for being dickheads now, there's plenty of people with wealth the general public couldn't care less about. This is a distinction of people that has objective meaning, unlike race. It's more stupid to translate that to race.

adjl posted...

Also, the idea that "future transgressions are blocked" in a discussion of racism would be hilariously naive if people with the power to act on that belief didn't genuinely believe it.

As far as the law is concerned, certain groups are protected above others that you believe are oppressed, legally it's more than blocked.

adjl posted...

Or you can demand that the people that are already in the positions to effect that change honour the responsibility that those positions carry (or be removed if they refuse to allow the position to be occupied by somebody more scrupulous).

Absolutely nobody owes you work. They have a responsibility to themselves and those they choose to protect, that is how individualism works, freedom to do as you wish, not as others deem.

adjl posted...

It's not remotely reasonable to expect that everybody that finds a problem with society gets themselves into a position to solve that problem personally. Nothing would ever get fixed that way.

Literally how revolutions happen, countries form, political parties build. It is beyond reasonable to expect people to work together in their shared interest, and those who don't have no right to complain about something they never worked for.