Datasets:

---

innovation-hacking2

/

shitposting_dataset3

like 0

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?" ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”" ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?" ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"" ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace" ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?" ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?" ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?" ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!" ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion.." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides)." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive" ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"" ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"" ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?" ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?" ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?" ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?", ">\n\nThe difference is that your place of birth or the poverty level of your parents and all the other factors I listed are circumstances surrounding you and your inherent qualities in you like race is." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?", ">\n\nThe difference is that your place of birth or the poverty level of your parents and all the other factors I listed are circumstances surrounding you and your inherent qualities in you like race is.", ">\n\nBut being born into a given race is literally a circumstance of birth conveyed upon you by your parents. What makes race more “inherent” than poverty? And why should we be rendering assistance to things which are merely “circumstantial” as opposed to “inherent”. I’m not sure the distinction is real or important, but to the extent that it is, doesn’t the “inherent” category require more assistance?" ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?", ">\n\nThe difference is that your place of birth or the poverty level of your parents and all the other factors I listed are circumstances surrounding you and your inherent qualities in you like race is.", ">\n\nBut being born into a given race is literally a circumstance of birth conveyed upon you by your parents. What makes race more “inherent” than poverty? And why should we be rendering assistance to things which are merely “circumstantial” as opposed to “inherent”. I’m not sure the distinction is real or important, but to the extent that it is, doesn’t the “inherent” category require more assistance?", ">\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?", ">\n\nThe difference is that your place of birth or the poverty level of your parents and all the other factors I listed are circumstances surrounding you and your inherent qualities in you like race is.", ">\n\nBut being born into a given race is literally a circumstance of birth conveyed upon you by your parents. What makes race more “inherent” than poverty? And why should we be rendering assistance to things which are merely “circumstantial” as opposed to “inherent”. I’m not sure the distinction is real or important, but to the extent that it is, doesn’t the “inherent” category require more assistance?", ">\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.", ">\n\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \n\nSo you're switching positions? You're saying that we should help based on inherent characteristics but not circumstantial characteristics like poverty, family background, nationality, etc.?\n\nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.\n\nYou've just flipped your whole reasoning. So now you say we should only be helping people with disabilities and not those other categories then?" ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?", ">\n\nThe difference is that your place of birth or the poverty level of your parents and all the other factors I listed are circumstances surrounding you and your inherent qualities in you like race is.", ">\n\nBut being born into a given race is literally a circumstance of birth conveyed upon you by your parents. What makes race more “inherent” than poverty? And why should we be rendering assistance to things which are merely “circumstantial” as opposed to “inherent”. I’m not sure the distinction is real or important, but to the extent that it is, doesn’t the “inherent” category require more assistance?", ">\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.", ">\n\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \n\nSo you're switching positions? You're saying that we should help based on inherent characteristics but not circumstantial characteristics like poverty, family background, nationality, etc.?\n\nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.\n\nYou've just flipped your whole reasoning. So now you say we should only be helping people with disabilities and not those other categories then?", ">\n\nWe absolutely should help people based on both inherent and circumstantial characteristics that disadvantage them, that was never in contention, the point of the CMV is that skin color is not an inherent disadvantage, to claim it is puts it in the same category as birth defects and mental illnesses, and we shouldn't take it into account when assisting people. \nDo you enjoy purposefully interpreting my every statement in the worst possible light? All this conversation did is reiterate the body of the post, thanks." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?", ">\n\nThe difference is that your place of birth or the poverty level of your parents and all the other factors I listed are circumstances surrounding you and your inherent qualities in you like race is.", ">\n\nBut being born into a given race is literally a circumstance of birth conveyed upon you by your parents. What makes race more “inherent” than poverty? And why should we be rendering assistance to things which are merely “circumstantial” as opposed to “inherent”. I’m not sure the distinction is real or important, but to the extent that it is, doesn’t the “inherent” category require more assistance?", ">\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.", ">\n\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \n\nSo you're switching positions? You're saying that we should help based on inherent characteristics but not circumstantial characteristics like poverty, family background, nationality, etc.?\n\nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.\n\nYou've just flipped your whole reasoning. So now you say we should only be helping people with disabilities and not those other categories then?", ">\n\nWe absolutely should help people based on both inherent and circumstantial characteristics that disadvantage them, that was never in contention, the point of the CMV is that skin color is not an inherent disadvantage, to claim it is puts it in the same category as birth defects and mental illnesses, and we shouldn't take it into account when assisting people. \nDo you enjoy purposefully interpreting my every statement in the worst possible light? All this conversation did is reiterate the body of the post, thanks.", ">\n\nThis logic makes no sense. One is not arguing that race is an inherent disadvantage in a physiological manner, but in a social manner. Race is a social construct that is used to group people. In many places, especially America, this social construct has been used to explicitly and implicitly harm these groups throughout history. Thus, one's race is an inherit disadvantage or advantage, not based on physiological differences, but social ones. You basically argue that saying race can be a disadvantage is supporting eugenics, which is far from the truth. \nMany people get frustrated when they feel cheated, but in every class, from dirt poor to filthy rich, non-white individuals face far more challenges in America than white ones. This is a fact. \nFurther, there are little to no government handouts based on race. America has one of the worst social safety nets in the western world, despite the highest GDP per capita in the world. If you are truly concerned about poverty you should look into issues like universal healthcare, changing the way we measure poverty (it is archaic, obsolete and fails many) and wealth inequality (see gini index). Few argue for your so called \"race-based handouts\" unless you're referring to reparations which is not a proposed solution to poverty but a justice initiative. You may be conflating \"handouts\" with affirmative action which aims to address issues created by historical discrimination, racism and segregation in education (and housing among other areas). \nI do not understand the issue with helping a group of people that have far more challenges than others? Slavery was not that long ago. Many older black Americans have grandparents who were slaves, legal discrimination/segregation has only been abolished for 60-70 years. There was still a school in Cleveland, MS segregated until 2016. Redlining was (is?) enforced well after it was banned in 1968. These effects are closer than you think. \nSome quality reading for you to learn why your logic fails: \n\"Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality\" - Oliver & Shapiro \n\"Medical Apartheid\" - Harriet A. Washington\n\"Progress for the Poor\" - Lane Kenworthy\n\"The New Jim Crow\" - Michelle Alexander" ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?", ">\n\nThe difference is that your place of birth or the poverty level of your parents and all the other factors I listed are circumstances surrounding you and your inherent qualities in you like race is.", ">\n\nBut being born into a given race is literally a circumstance of birth conveyed upon you by your parents. What makes race more “inherent” than poverty? And why should we be rendering assistance to things which are merely “circumstantial” as opposed to “inherent”. I’m not sure the distinction is real or important, but to the extent that it is, doesn’t the “inherent” category require more assistance?", ">\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.", ">\n\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \n\nSo you're switching positions? You're saying that we should help based on inherent characteristics but not circumstantial characteristics like poverty, family background, nationality, etc.?\n\nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.\n\nYou've just flipped your whole reasoning. So now you say we should only be helping people with disabilities and not those other categories then?", ">\n\nWe absolutely should help people based on both inherent and circumstantial characteristics that disadvantage them, that was never in contention, the point of the CMV is that skin color is not an inherent disadvantage, to claim it is puts it in the same category as birth defects and mental illnesses, and we shouldn't take it into account when assisting people. \nDo you enjoy purposefully interpreting my every statement in the worst possible light? All this conversation did is reiterate the body of the post, thanks.", ">\n\nThis logic makes no sense. One is not arguing that race is an inherent disadvantage in a physiological manner, but in a social manner. Race is a social construct that is used to group people. In many places, especially America, this social construct has been used to explicitly and implicitly harm these groups throughout history. Thus, one's race is an inherit disadvantage or advantage, not based on physiological differences, but social ones. You basically argue that saying race can be a disadvantage is supporting eugenics, which is far from the truth. \nMany people get frustrated when they feel cheated, but in every class, from dirt poor to filthy rich, non-white individuals face far more challenges in America than white ones. This is a fact. \nFurther, there are little to no government handouts based on race. America has one of the worst social safety nets in the western world, despite the highest GDP per capita in the world. If you are truly concerned about poverty you should look into issues like universal healthcare, changing the way we measure poverty (it is archaic, obsolete and fails many) and wealth inequality (see gini index). Few argue for your so called \"race-based handouts\" unless you're referring to reparations which is not a proposed solution to poverty but a justice initiative. You may be conflating \"handouts\" with affirmative action which aims to address issues created by historical discrimination, racism and segregation in education (and housing among other areas). \nI do not understand the issue with helping a group of people that have far more challenges than others? Slavery was not that long ago. Many older black Americans have grandparents who were slaves, legal discrimination/segregation has only been abolished for 60-70 years. There was still a school in Cleveland, MS segregated until 2016. Redlining was (is?) enforced well after it was banned in 1968. These effects are closer than you think. \nSome quality reading for you to learn why your logic fails: \n\"Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality\" - Oliver & Shapiro \n\"Medical Apartheid\" - Harriet A. Washington\n\"Progress for the Poor\" - Lane Kenworthy\n\"The New Jim Crow\" - Michelle Alexander", ">\n\nI can certainly see your point but why is equity your target and not equality? \nFrom a non-american perspective the answer seems decently simple. Use the money that you would use in handouts to build systems that raise the opportunity people have access to.\nNow only using handout money might not be enough but there are a lot of other places where you can delegate money from. Not the military cuz it secures general global peace(more peaceful now than practically any other period in his history since Pax Romana. \nYou could use the money usually used for foreign aid to help your own citizens. It might sound cynical but the highest priority of any well working nation should be its own people and when a lot of them are struggling then that should take precedence over foreign aid.\nUse all that gathered money to create institutions like NAV( Norwegian system that helps people get jobs and education and they get a monthly allowance that they can live on until they don't need it anymore) \nI'm no politician but surely there are better ways to secure equality for its own citizens." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?", ">\n\nThe difference is that your place of birth or the poverty level of your parents and all the other factors I listed are circumstances surrounding you and your inherent qualities in you like race is.", ">\n\nBut being born into a given race is literally a circumstance of birth conveyed upon you by your parents. What makes race more “inherent” than poverty? And why should we be rendering assistance to things which are merely “circumstantial” as opposed to “inherent”. I’m not sure the distinction is real or important, but to the extent that it is, doesn’t the “inherent” category require more assistance?", ">\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.", ">\n\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \n\nSo you're switching positions? You're saying that we should help based on inherent characteristics but not circumstantial characteristics like poverty, family background, nationality, etc.?\n\nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.\n\nYou've just flipped your whole reasoning. So now you say we should only be helping people with disabilities and not those other categories then?", ">\n\nWe absolutely should help people based on both inherent and circumstantial characteristics that disadvantage them, that was never in contention, the point of the CMV is that skin color is not an inherent disadvantage, to claim it is puts it in the same category as birth defects and mental illnesses, and we shouldn't take it into account when assisting people. \nDo you enjoy purposefully interpreting my every statement in the worst possible light? All this conversation did is reiterate the body of the post, thanks.", ">\n\nThis logic makes no sense. One is not arguing that race is an inherent disadvantage in a physiological manner, but in a social manner. Race is a social construct that is used to group people. In many places, especially America, this social construct has been used to explicitly and implicitly harm these groups throughout history. Thus, one's race is an inherit disadvantage or advantage, not based on physiological differences, but social ones. You basically argue that saying race can be a disadvantage is supporting eugenics, which is far from the truth. \nMany people get frustrated when they feel cheated, but in every class, from dirt poor to filthy rich, non-white individuals face far more challenges in America than white ones. This is a fact. \nFurther, there are little to no government handouts based on race. America has one of the worst social safety nets in the western world, despite the highest GDP per capita in the world. If you are truly concerned about poverty you should look into issues like universal healthcare, changing the way we measure poverty (it is archaic, obsolete and fails many) and wealth inequality (see gini index). Few argue for your so called \"race-based handouts\" unless you're referring to reparations which is not a proposed solution to poverty but a justice initiative. You may be conflating \"handouts\" with affirmative action which aims to address issues created by historical discrimination, racism and segregation in education (and housing among other areas). \nI do not understand the issue with helping a group of people that have far more challenges than others? Slavery was not that long ago. Many older black Americans have grandparents who were slaves, legal discrimination/segregation has only been abolished for 60-70 years. There was still a school in Cleveland, MS segregated until 2016. Redlining was (is?) enforced well after it was banned in 1968. These effects are closer than you think. \nSome quality reading for you to learn why your logic fails: \n\"Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality\" - Oliver & Shapiro \n\"Medical Apartheid\" - Harriet A. Washington\n\"Progress for the Poor\" - Lane Kenworthy\n\"The New Jim Crow\" - Michelle Alexander", ">\n\nI can certainly see your point but why is equity your target and not equality? \nFrom a non-american perspective the answer seems decently simple. Use the money that you would use in handouts to build systems that raise the opportunity people have access to.\nNow only using handout money might not be enough but there are a lot of other places where you can delegate money from. Not the military cuz it secures general global peace(more peaceful now than practically any other period in his history since Pax Romana. \nYou could use the money usually used for foreign aid to help your own citizens. It might sound cynical but the highest priority of any well working nation should be its own people and when a lot of them are struggling then that should take precedence over foreign aid.\nUse all that gathered money to create institutions like NAV( Norwegian system that helps people get jobs and education and they get a monthly allowance that they can live on until they don't need it anymore) \nI'm no politician but surely there are better ways to secure equality for its own citizens.", ">\n\nBecause the US has equality on paper more or less, and yet a lot of people are still struggling. I want something near economic equity because I don't want people to suffer, and we should help those who can't help themselves, my problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?", ">\n\nThe difference is that your place of birth or the poverty level of your parents and all the other factors I listed are circumstances surrounding you and your inherent qualities in you like race is.", ">\n\nBut being born into a given race is literally a circumstance of birth conveyed upon you by your parents. What makes race more “inherent” than poverty? And why should we be rendering assistance to things which are merely “circumstantial” as opposed to “inherent”. I’m not sure the distinction is real or important, but to the extent that it is, doesn’t the “inherent” category require more assistance?", ">\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.", ">\n\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \n\nSo you're switching positions? You're saying that we should help based on inherent characteristics but not circumstantial characteristics like poverty, family background, nationality, etc.?\n\nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.\n\nYou've just flipped your whole reasoning. So now you say we should only be helping people with disabilities and not those other categories then?", ">\n\nWe absolutely should help people based on both inherent and circumstantial characteristics that disadvantage them, that was never in contention, the point of the CMV is that skin color is not an inherent disadvantage, to claim it is puts it in the same category as birth defects and mental illnesses, and we shouldn't take it into account when assisting people. \nDo you enjoy purposefully interpreting my every statement in the worst possible light? All this conversation did is reiterate the body of the post, thanks.", ">\n\nThis logic makes no sense. One is not arguing that race is an inherent disadvantage in a physiological manner, but in a social manner. Race is a social construct that is used to group people. In many places, especially America, this social construct has been used to explicitly and implicitly harm these groups throughout history. Thus, one's race is an inherit disadvantage or advantage, not based on physiological differences, but social ones. You basically argue that saying race can be a disadvantage is supporting eugenics, which is far from the truth. \nMany people get frustrated when they feel cheated, but in every class, from dirt poor to filthy rich, non-white individuals face far more challenges in America than white ones. This is a fact. \nFurther, there are little to no government handouts based on race. America has one of the worst social safety nets in the western world, despite the highest GDP per capita in the world. If you are truly concerned about poverty you should look into issues like universal healthcare, changing the way we measure poverty (it is archaic, obsolete and fails many) and wealth inequality (see gini index). Few argue for your so called \"race-based handouts\" unless you're referring to reparations which is not a proposed solution to poverty but a justice initiative. You may be conflating \"handouts\" with affirmative action which aims to address issues created by historical discrimination, racism and segregation in education (and housing among other areas). \nI do not understand the issue with helping a group of people that have far more challenges than others? Slavery was not that long ago. Many older black Americans have grandparents who were slaves, legal discrimination/segregation has only been abolished for 60-70 years. There was still a school in Cleveland, MS segregated until 2016. Redlining was (is?) enforced well after it was banned in 1968. These effects are closer than you think. \nSome quality reading for you to learn why your logic fails: \n\"Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality\" - Oliver & Shapiro \n\"Medical Apartheid\" - Harriet A. Washington\n\"Progress for the Poor\" - Lane Kenworthy\n\"The New Jim Crow\" - Michelle Alexander", ">\n\nI can certainly see your point but why is equity your target and not equality? \nFrom a non-american perspective the answer seems decently simple. Use the money that you would use in handouts to build systems that raise the opportunity people have access to.\nNow only using handout money might not be enough but there are a lot of other places where you can delegate money from. Not the military cuz it secures general global peace(more peaceful now than practically any other period in his history since Pax Romana. \nYou could use the money usually used for foreign aid to help your own citizens. It might sound cynical but the highest priority of any well working nation should be its own people and when a lot of them are struggling then that should take precedence over foreign aid.\nUse all that gathered money to create institutions like NAV( Norwegian system that helps people get jobs and education and they get a monthly allowance that they can live on until they don't need it anymore) \nI'm no politician but surely there are better ways to secure equality for its own citizens.", ">\n\nBecause the US has equality on paper more or less, and yet a lot of people are still struggling. I want something near economic equity because I don't want people to suffer, and we should help those who can't help themselves, my problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.", ">\n\n\nmy problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.\n\nnobody's doing that, you only think they are because you don't want to acknowledge the effect racism has on opportunities for minorities, and keep desperately trying to claim its all purely based on racial backgrounds as if that's the only factor." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?", ">\n\nThe difference is that your place of birth or the poverty level of your parents and all the other factors I listed are circumstances surrounding you and your inherent qualities in you like race is.", ">\n\nBut being born into a given race is literally a circumstance of birth conveyed upon you by your parents. What makes race more “inherent” than poverty? And why should we be rendering assistance to things which are merely “circumstantial” as opposed to “inherent”. I’m not sure the distinction is real or important, but to the extent that it is, doesn’t the “inherent” category require more assistance?", ">\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.", ">\n\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \n\nSo you're switching positions? You're saying that we should help based on inherent characteristics but not circumstantial characteristics like poverty, family background, nationality, etc.?\n\nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.\n\nYou've just flipped your whole reasoning. So now you say we should only be helping people with disabilities and not those other categories then?", ">\n\nWe absolutely should help people based on both inherent and circumstantial characteristics that disadvantage them, that was never in contention, the point of the CMV is that skin color is not an inherent disadvantage, to claim it is puts it in the same category as birth defects and mental illnesses, and we shouldn't take it into account when assisting people. \nDo you enjoy purposefully interpreting my every statement in the worst possible light? All this conversation did is reiterate the body of the post, thanks.", ">\n\nThis logic makes no sense. One is not arguing that race is an inherent disadvantage in a physiological manner, but in a social manner. Race is a social construct that is used to group people. In many places, especially America, this social construct has been used to explicitly and implicitly harm these groups throughout history. Thus, one's race is an inherit disadvantage or advantage, not based on physiological differences, but social ones. You basically argue that saying race can be a disadvantage is supporting eugenics, which is far from the truth. \nMany people get frustrated when they feel cheated, but in every class, from dirt poor to filthy rich, non-white individuals face far more challenges in America than white ones. This is a fact. \nFurther, there are little to no government handouts based on race. America has one of the worst social safety nets in the western world, despite the highest GDP per capita in the world. If you are truly concerned about poverty you should look into issues like universal healthcare, changing the way we measure poverty (it is archaic, obsolete and fails many) and wealth inequality (see gini index). Few argue for your so called \"race-based handouts\" unless you're referring to reparations which is not a proposed solution to poverty but a justice initiative. You may be conflating \"handouts\" with affirmative action which aims to address issues created by historical discrimination, racism and segregation in education (and housing among other areas). \nI do not understand the issue with helping a group of people that have far more challenges than others? Slavery was not that long ago. Many older black Americans have grandparents who were slaves, legal discrimination/segregation has only been abolished for 60-70 years. There was still a school in Cleveland, MS segregated until 2016. Redlining was (is?) enforced well after it was banned in 1968. These effects are closer than you think. \nSome quality reading for you to learn why your logic fails: \n\"Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality\" - Oliver & Shapiro \n\"Medical Apartheid\" - Harriet A. Washington\n\"Progress for the Poor\" - Lane Kenworthy\n\"The New Jim Crow\" - Michelle Alexander", ">\n\nI can certainly see your point but why is equity your target and not equality? \nFrom a non-american perspective the answer seems decently simple. Use the money that you would use in handouts to build systems that raise the opportunity people have access to.\nNow only using handout money might not be enough but there are a lot of other places where you can delegate money from. Not the military cuz it secures general global peace(more peaceful now than practically any other period in his history since Pax Romana. \nYou could use the money usually used for foreign aid to help your own citizens. It might sound cynical but the highest priority of any well working nation should be its own people and when a lot of them are struggling then that should take precedence over foreign aid.\nUse all that gathered money to create institutions like NAV( Norwegian system that helps people get jobs and education and they get a monthly allowance that they can live on until they don't need it anymore) \nI'm no politician but surely there are better ways to secure equality for its own citizens.", ">\n\nBecause the US has equality on paper more or less, and yet a lot of people are still struggling. I want something near economic equity because I don't want people to suffer, and we should help those who can't help themselves, my problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.", ">\n\n\nmy problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.\n\nnobody's doing that, you only think they are because you don't want to acknowledge the effect racism has on opportunities for minorities, and keep desperately trying to claim its all purely based on racial backgrounds as if that's the only factor.", ">\n\nUmm wtf. Trevor Noah grew up very poor in apartheid South Africa. If you are trying to come up with some poster child for people raised with a silver spoon in their mouth and never discriminated on based on his race he is not it." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?", ">\n\nThe difference is that your place of birth or the poverty level of your parents and all the other factors I listed are circumstances surrounding you and your inherent qualities in you like race is.", ">\n\nBut being born into a given race is literally a circumstance of birth conveyed upon you by your parents. What makes race more “inherent” than poverty? And why should we be rendering assistance to things which are merely “circumstantial” as opposed to “inherent”. I’m not sure the distinction is real or important, but to the extent that it is, doesn’t the “inherent” category require more assistance?", ">\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.", ">\n\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \n\nSo you're switching positions? You're saying that we should help based on inherent characteristics but not circumstantial characteristics like poverty, family background, nationality, etc.?\n\nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.\n\nYou've just flipped your whole reasoning. So now you say we should only be helping people with disabilities and not those other categories then?", ">\n\nWe absolutely should help people based on both inherent and circumstantial characteristics that disadvantage them, that was never in contention, the point of the CMV is that skin color is not an inherent disadvantage, to claim it is puts it in the same category as birth defects and mental illnesses, and we shouldn't take it into account when assisting people. \nDo you enjoy purposefully interpreting my every statement in the worst possible light? All this conversation did is reiterate the body of the post, thanks.", ">\n\nThis logic makes no sense. One is not arguing that race is an inherent disadvantage in a physiological manner, but in a social manner. Race is a social construct that is used to group people. In many places, especially America, this social construct has been used to explicitly and implicitly harm these groups throughout history. Thus, one's race is an inherit disadvantage or advantage, not based on physiological differences, but social ones. You basically argue that saying race can be a disadvantage is supporting eugenics, which is far from the truth. \nMany people get frustrated when they feel cheated, but in every class, from dirt poor to filthy rich, non-white individuals face far more challenges in America than white ones. This is a fact. \nFurther, there are little to no government handouts based on race. America has one of the worst social safety nets in the western world, despite the highest GDP per capita in the world. If you are truly concerned about poverty you should look into issues like universal healthcare, changing the way we measure poverty (it is archaic, obsolete and fails many) and wealth inequality (see gini index). Few argue for your so called \"race-based handouts\" unless you're referring to reparations which is not a proposed solution to poverty but a justice initiative. You may be conflating \"handouts\" with affirmative action which aims to address issues created by historical discrimination, racism and segregation in education (and housing among other areas). \nI do not understand the issue with helping a group of people that have far more challenges than others? Slavery was not that long ago. Many older black Americans have grandparents who were slaves, legal discrimination/segregation has only been abolished for 60-70 years. There was still a school in Cleveland, MS segregated until 2016. Redlining was (is?) enforced well after it was banned in 1968. These effects are closer than you think. \nSome quality reading for you to learn why your logic fails: \n\"Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality\" - Oliver & Shapiro \n\"Medical Apartheid\" - Harriet A. Washington\n\"Progress for the Poor\" - Lane Kenworthy\n\"The New Jim Crow\" - Michelle Alexander", ">\n\nI can certainly see your point but why is equity your target and not equality? \nFrom a non-american perspective the answer seems decently simple. Use the money that you would use in handouts to build systems that raise the opportunity people have access to.\nNow only using handout money might not be enough but there are a lot of other places where you can delegate money from. Not the military cuz it secures general global peace(more peaceful now than practically any other period in his history since Pax Romana. \nYou could use the money usually used for foreign aid to help your own citizens. It might sound cynical but the highest priority of any well working nation should be its own people and when a lot of them are struggling then that should take precedence over foreign aid.\nUse all that gathered money to create institutions like NAV( Norwegian system that helps people get jobs and education and they get a monthly allowance that they can live on until they don't need it anymore) \nI'm no politician but surely there are better ways to secure equality for its own citizens.", ">\n\nBecause the US has equality on paper more or less, and yet a lot of people are still struggling. I want something near economic equity because I don't want people to suffer, and we should help those who can't help themselves, my problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.", ">\n\n\nmy problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.\n\nnobody's doing that, you only think they are because you don't want to acknowledge the effect racism has on opportunities for minorities, and keep desperately trying to claim its all purely based on racial backgrounds as if that's the only factor.", ">\n\nUmm wtf. Trevor Noah grew up very poor in apartheid South Africa. If you are trying to come up with some poster child for people raised with a silver spoon in their mouth and never discriminated on based on his race he is not it.", ">\n\nIt’s because you can’t erase bias in humans, and in all of these programs humans are decision makers. When you have group A in control and they administrate a program, the benefits will skew toward group A because of human nature. It happens subconsciously if not consciously.\nSo if we start from the premise that different races, ethnicities and genders have similar abilities sufficient for similar capacity for achievement, and we observe that groups B, C, etc are disproportionately disadvantaged, the only way to actually address that is to purposefully facilitate a change.\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”, Ibram Kendi says (paraphrasing) that because of this, every policy either explicitly combats racism in this way or it implicitly promotes existing racism by not doing so. It’s a good book.\nThe Cletus comment was pretty lame btw. And biased. For all you know that guy’s IQ is higher than yours." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?", ">\n\nThe difference is that your place of birth or the poverty level of your parents and all the other factors I listed are circumstances surrounding you and your inherent qualities in you like race is.", ">\n\nBut being born into a given race is literally a circumstance of birth conveyed upon you by your parents. What makes race more “inherent” than poverty? And why should we be rendering assistance to things which are merely “circumstantial” as opposed to “inherent”. I’m not sure the distinction is real or important, but to the extent that it is, doesn’t the “inherent” category require more assistance?", ">\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.", ">\n\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \n\nSo you're switching positions? You're saying that we should help based on inherent characteristics but not circumstantial characteristics like poverty, family background, nationality, etc.?\n\nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.\n\nYou've just flipped your whole reasoning. So now you say we should only be helping people with disabilities and not those other categories then?", ">\n\nWe absolutely should help people based on both inherent and circumstantial characteristics that disadvantage them, that was never in contention, the point of the CMV is that skin color is not an inherent disadvantage, to claim it is puts it in the same category as birth defects and mental illnesses, and we shouldn't take it into account when assisting people. \nDo you enjoy purposefully interpreting my every statement in the worst possible light? All this conversation did is reiterate the body of the post, thanks.", ">\n\nThis logic makes no sense. One is not arguing that race is an inherent disadvantage in a physiological manner, but in a social manner. Race is a social construct that is used to group people. In many places, especially America, this social construct has been used to explicitly and implicitly harm these groups throughout history. Thus, one's race is an inherit disadvantage or advantage, not based on physiological differences, but social ones. You basically argue that saying race can be a disadvantage is supporting eugenics, which is far from the truth. \nMany people get frustrated when they feel cheated, but in every class, from dirt poor to filthy rich, non-white individuals face far more challenges in America than white ones. This is a fact. \nFurther, there are little to no government handouts based on race. America has one of the worst social safety nets in the western world, despite the highest GDP per capita in the world. If you are truly concerned about poverty you should look into issues like universal healthcare, changing the way we measure poverty (it is archaic, obsolete and fails many) and wealth inequality (see gini index). Few argue for your so called \"race-based handouts\" unless you're referring to reparations which is not a proposed solution to poverty but a justice initiative. You may be conflating \"handouts\" with affirmative action which aims to address issues created by historical discrimination, racism and segregation in education (and housing among other areas). \nI do not understand the issue with helping a group of people that have far more challenges than others? Slavery was not that long ago. Many older black Americans have grandparents who were slaves, legal discrimination/segregation has only been abolished for 60-70 years. There was still a school in Cleveland, MS segregated until 2016. Redlining was (is?) enforced well after it was banned in 1968. These effects are closer than you think. \nSome quality reading for you to learn why your logic fails: \n\"Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality\" - Oliver & Shapiro \n\"Medical Apartheid\" - Harriet A. Washington\n\"Progress for the Poor\" - Lane Kenworthy\n\"The New Jim Crow\" - Michelle Alexander", ">\n\nI can certainly see your point but why is equity your target and not equality? \nFrom a non-american perspective the answer seems decently simple. Use the money that you would use in handouts to build systems that raise the opportunity people have access to.\nNow only using handout money might not be enough but there are a lot of other places where you can delegate money from. Not the military cuz it secures general global peace(more peaceful now than practically any other period in his history since Pax Romana. \nYou could use the money usually used for foreign aid to help your own citizens. It might sound cynical but the highest priority of any well working nation should be its own people and when a lot of them are struggling then that should take precedence over foreign aid.\nUse all that gathered money to create institutions like NAV( Norwegian system that helps people get jobs and education and they get a monthly allowance that they can live on until they don't need it anymore) \nI'm no politician but surely there are better ways to secure equality for its own citizens.", ">\n\nBecause the US has equality on paper more or less, and yet a lot of people are still struggling. I want something near economic equity because I don't want people to suffer, and we should help those who can't help themselves, my problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.", ">\n\n\nmy problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.\n\nnobody's doing that, you only think they are because you don't want to acknowledge the effect racism has on opportunities for minorities, and keep desperately trying to claim its all purely based on racial backgrounds as if that's the only factor.", ">\n\nUmm wtf. Trevor Noah grew up very poor in apartheid South Africa. If you are trying to come up with some poster child for people raised with a silver spoon in their mouth and never discriminated on based on his race he is not it.", ">\n\nIt’s because you can’t erase bias in humans, and in all of these programs humans are decision makers. When you have group A in control and they administrate a program, the benefits will skew toward group A because of human nature. It happens subconsciously if not consciously.\nSo if we start from the premise that different races, ethnicities and genders have similar abilities sufficient for similar capacity for achievement, and we observe that groups B, C, etc are disproportionately disadvantaged, the only way to actually address that is to purposefully facilitate a change.\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”, Ibram Kendi says (paraphrasing) that because of this, every policy either explicitly combats racism in this way or it implicitly promotes existing racism by not doing so. It’s a good book.\nThe Cletus comment was pretty lame btw. And biased. For all you know that guy’s IQ is higher than yours.", ">\n\n\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”,\n\nFrom the same author who openly criticised interracial adoption. Opinion disregarded." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?", ">\n\nThe difference is that your place of birth or the poverty level of your parents and all the other factors I listed are circumstances surrounding you and your inherent qualities in you like race is.", ">\n\nBut being born into a given race is literally a circumstance of birth conveyed upon you by your parents. What makes race more “inherent” than poverty? And why should we be rendering assistance to things which are merely “circumstantial” as opposed to “inherent”. I’m not sure the distinction is real or important, but to the extent that it is, doesn’t the “inherent” category require more assistance?", ">\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.", ">\n\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \n\nSo you're switching positions? You're saying that we should help based on inherent characteristics but not circumstantial characteristics like poverty, family background, nationality, etc.?\n\nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.\n\nYou've just flipped your whole reasoning. So now you say we should only be helping people with disabilities and not those other categories then?", ">\n\nWe absolutely should help people based on both inherent and circumstantial characteristics that disadvantage them, that was never in contention, the point of the CMV is that skin color is not an inherent disadvantage, to claim it is puts it in the same category as birth defects and mental illnesses, and we shouldn't take it into account when assisting people. \nDo you enjoy purposefully interpreting my every statement in the worst possible light? All this conversation did is reiterate the body of the post, thanks.", ">\n\nThis logic makes no sense. One is not arguing that race is an inherent disadvantage in a physiological manner, but in a social manner. Race is a social construct that is used to group people. In many places, especially America, this social construct has been used to explicitly and implicitly harm these groups throughout history. Thus, one's race is an inherit disadvantage or advantage, not based on physiological differences, but social ones. You basically argue that saying race can be a disadvantage is supporting eugenics, which is far from the truth. \nMany people get frustrated when they feel cheated, but in every class, from dirt poor to filthy rich, non-white individuals face far more challenges in America than white ones. This is a fact. \nFurther, there are little to no government handouts based on race. America has one of the worst social safety nets in the western world, despite the highest GDP per capita in the world. If you are truly concerned about poverty you should look into issues like universal healthcare, changing the way we measure poverty (it is archaic, obsolete and fails many) and wealth inequality (see gini index). Few argue for your so called \"race-based handouts\" unless you're referring to reparations which is not a proposed solution to poverty but a justice initiative. You may be conflating \"handouts\" with affirmative action which aims to address issues created by historical discrimination, racism and segregation in education (and housing among other areas). \nI do not understand the issue with helping a group of people that have far more challenges than others? Slavery was not that long ago. Many older black Americans have grandparents who were slaves, legal discrimination/segregation has only been abolished for 60-70 years. There was still a school in Cleveland, MS segregated until 2016. Redlining was (is?) enforced well after it was banned in 1968. These effects are closer than you think. \nSome quality reading for you to learn why your logic fails: \n\"Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality\" - Oliver & Shapiro \n\"Medical Apartheid\" - Harriet A. Washington\n\"Progress for the Poor\" - Lane Kenworthy\n\"The New Jim Crow\" - Michelle Alexander", ">\n\nI can certainly see your point but why is equity your target and not equality? \nFrom a non-american perspective the answer seems decently simple. Use the money that you would use in handouts to build systems that raise the opportunity people have access to.\nNow only using handout money might not be enough but there are a lot of other places where you can delegate money from. Not the military cuz it secures general global peace(more peaceful now than practically any other period in his history since Pax Romana. \nYou could use the money usually used for foreign aid to help your own citizens. It might sound cynical but the highest priority of any well working nation should be its own people and when a lot of them are struggling then that should take precedence over foreign aid.\nUse all that gathered money to create institutions like NAV( Norwegian system that helps people get jobs and education and they get a monthly allowance that they can live on until they don't need it anymore) \nI'm no politician but surely there are better ways to secure equality for its own citizens.", ">\n\nBecause the US has equality on paper more or less, and yet a lot of people are still struggling. I want something near economic equity because I don't want people to suffer, and we should help those who can't help themselves, my problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.", ">\n\n\nmy problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.\n\nnobody's doing that, you only think they are because you don't want to acknowledge the effect racism has on opportunities for minorities, and keep desperately trying to claim its all purely based on racial backgrounds as if that's the only factor.", ">\n\nUmm wtf. Trevor Noah grew up very poor in apartheid South Africa. If you are trying to come up with some poster child for people raised with a silver spoon in their mouth and never discriminated on based on his race he is not it.", ">\n\nIt’s because you can’t erase bias in humans, and in all of these programs humans are decision makers. When you have group A in control and they administrate a program, the benefits will skew toward group A because of human nature. It happens subconsciously if not consciously.\nSo if we start from the premise that different races, ethnicities and genders have similar abilities sufficient for similar capacity for achievement, and we observe that groups B, C, etc are disproportionately disadvantaged, the only way to actually address that is to purposefully facilitate a change.\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”, Ibram Kendi says (paraphrasing) that because of this, every policy either explicitly combats racism in this way or it implicitly promotes existing racism by not doing so. It’s a good book.\nThe Cletus comment was pretty lame btw. And biased. For all you know that guy’s IQ is higher than yours.", ">\n\n\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”,\n\nFrom the same author who openly criticised interracial adoption. Opinion disregarded.", ">\n\nI believe what he said is that adopting children of other races doesn’t mean you can’t act racist. It was a bad tweet. It doesn’t have anything to do with this argument." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?", ">\n\nThe difference is that your place of birth or the poverty level of your parents and all the other factors I listed are circumstances surrounding you and your inherent qualities in you like race is.", ">\n\nBut being born into a given race is literally a circumstance of birth conveyed upon you by your parents. What makes race more “inherent” than poverty? And why should we be rendering assistance to things which are merely “circumstantial” as opposed to “inherent”. I’m not sure the distinction is real or important, but to the extent that it is, doesn’t the “inherent” category require more assistance?", ">\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.", ">\n\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \n\nSo you're switching positions? You're saying that we should help based on inherent characteristics but not circumstantial characteristics like poverty, family background, nationality, etc.?\n\nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.\n\nYou've just flipped your whole reasoning. So now you say we should only be helping people with disabilities and not those other categories then?", ">\n\nWe absolutely should help people based on both inherent and circumstantial characteristics that disadvantage them, that was never in contention, the point of the CMV is that skin color is not an inherent disadvantage, to claim it is puts it in the same category as birth defects and mental illnesses, and we shouldn't take it into account when assisting people. \nDo you enjoy purposefully interpreting my every statement in the worst possible light? All this conversation did is reiterate the body of the post, thanks.", ">\n\nThis logic makes no sense. One is not arguing that race is an inherent disadvantage in a physiological manner, but in a social manner. Race is a social construct that is used to group people. In many places, especially America, this social construct has been used to explicitly and implicitly harm these groups throughout history. Thus, one's race is an inherit disadvantage or advantage, not based on physiological differences, but social ones. You basically argue that saying race can be a disadvantage is supporting eugenics, which is far from the truth. \nMany people get frustrated when they feel cheated, but in every class, from dirt poor to filthy rich, non-white individuals face far more challenges in America than white ones. This is a fact. \nFurther, there are little to no government handouts based on race. America has one of the worst social safety nets in the western world, despite the highest GDP per capita in the world. If you are truly concerned about poverty you should look into issues like universal healthcare, changing the way we measure poverty (it is archaic, obsolete and fails many) and wealth inequality (see gini index). Few argue for your so called \"race-based handouts\" unless you're referring to reparations which is not a proposed solution to poverty but a justice initiative. You may be conflating \"handouts\" with affirmative action which aims to address issues created by historical discrimination, racism and segregation in education (and housing among other areas). \nI do not understand the issue with helping a group of people that have far more challenges than others? Slavery was not that long ago. Many older black Americans have grandparents who were slaves, legal discrimination/segregation has only been abolished for 60-70 years. There was still a school in Cleveland, MS segregated until 2016. Redlining was (is?) enforced well after it was banned in 1968. These effects are closer than you think. \nSome quality reading for you to learn why your logic fails: \n\"Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality\" - Oliver & Shapiro \n\"Medical Apartheid\" - Harriet A. Washington\n\"Progress for the Poor\" - Lane Kenworthy\n\"The New Jim Crow\" - Michelle Alexander", ">\n\nI can certainly see your point but why is equity your target and not equality? \nFrom a non-american perspective the answer seems decently simple. Use the money that you would use in handouts to build systems that raise the opportunity people have access to.\nNow only using handout money might not be enough but there are a lot of other places where you can delegate money from. Not the military cuz it secures general global peace(more peaceful now than practically any other period in his history since Pax Romana. \nYou could use the money usually used for foreign aid to help your own citizens. It might sound cynical but the highest priority of any well working nation should be its own people and when a lot of them are struggling then that should take precedence over foreign aid.\nUse all that gathered money to create institutions like NAV( Norwegian system that helps people get jobs and education and they get a monthly allowance that they can live on until they don't need it anymore) \nI'm no politician but surely there are better ways to secure equality for its own citizens.", ">\n\nBecause the US has equality on paper more or less, and yet a lot of people are still struggling. I want something near economic equity because I don't want people to suffer, and we should help those who can't help themselves, my problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.", ">\n\n\nmy problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.\n\nnobody's doing that, you only think they are because you don't want to acknowledge the effect racism has on opportunities for minorities, and keep desperately trying to claim its all purely based on racial backgrounds as if that's the only factor.", ">\n\nUmm wtf. Trevor Noah grew up very poor in apartheid South Africa. If you are trying to come up with some poster child for people raised with a silver spoon in their mouth and never discriminated on based on his race he is not it.", ">\n\nIt’s because you can’t erase bias in humans, and in all of these programs humans are decision makers. When you have group A in control and they administrate a program, the benefits will skew toward group A because of human nature. It happens subconsciously if not consciously.\nSo if we start from the premise that different races, ethnicities and genders have similar abilities sufficient for similar capacity for achievement, and we observe that groups B, C, etc are disproportionately disadvantaged, the only way to actually address that is to purposefully facilitate a change.\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”, Ibram Kendi says (paraphrasing) that because of this, every policy either explicitly combats racism in this way or it implicitly promotes existing racism by not doing so. It’s a good book.\nThe Cletus comment was pretty lame btw. And biased. For all you know that guy’s IQ is higher than yours.", ">\n\n\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”,\n\nFrom the same author who openly criticised interracial adoption. Opinion disregarded.", ">\n\nI believe what he said is that adopting children of other races doesn’t mean you can’t act racist. It was a bad tweet. It doesn’t have anything to do with this argument.", ">\n\nBut certain races also face verifiable additional hardships due to their race." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?", ">\n\nThe difference is that your place of birth or the poverty level of your parents and all the other factors I listed are circumstances surrounding you and your inherent qualities in you like race is.", ">\n\nBut being born into a given race is literally a circumstance of birth conveyed upon you by your parents. What makes race more “inherent” than poverty? And why should we be rendering assistance to things which are merely “circumstantial” as opposed to “inherent”. I’m not sure the distinction is real or important, but to the extent that it is, doesn’t the “inherent” category require more assistance?", ">\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.", ">\n\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \n\nSo you're switching positions? You're saying that we should help based on inherent characteristics but not circumstantial characteristics like poverty, family background, nationality, etc.?\n\nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.\n\nYou've just flipped your whole reasoning. So now you say we should only be helping people with disabilities and not those other categories then?", ">\n\nWe absolutely should help people based on both inherent and circumstantial characteristics that disadvantage them, that was never in contention, the point of the CMV is that skin color is not an inherent disadvantage, to claim it is puts it in the same category as birth defects and mental illnesses, and we shouldn't take it into account when assisting people. \nDo you enjoy purposefully interpreting my every statement in the worst possible light? All this conversation did is reiterate the body of the post, thanks.", ">\n\nThis logic makes no sense. One is not arguing that race is an inherent disadvantage in a physiological manner, but in a social manner. Race is a social construct that is used to group people. In many places, especially America, this social construct has been used to explicitly and implicitly harm these groups throughout history. Thus, one's race is an inherit disadvantage or advantage, not based on physiological differences, but social ones. You basically argue that saying race can be a disadvantage is supporting eugenics, which is far from the truth. \nMany people get frustrated when they feel cheated, but in every class, from dirt poor to filthy rich, non-white individuals face far more challenges in America than white ones. This is a fact. \nFurther, there are little to no government handouts based on race. America has one of the worst social safety nets in the western world, despite the highest GDP per capita in the world. If you are truly concerned about poverty you should look into issues like universal healthcare, changing the way we measure poverty (it is archaic, obsolete and fails many) and wealth inequality (see gini index). Few argue for your so called \"race-based handouts\" unless you're referring to reparations which is not a proposed solution to poverty but a justice initiative. You may be conflating \"handouts\" with affirmative action which aims to address issues created by historical discrimination, racism and segregation in education (and housing among other areas). \nI do not understand the issue with helping a group of people that have far more challenges than others? Slavery was not that long ago. Many older black Americans have grandparents who were slaves, legal discrimination/segregation has only been abolished for 60-70 years. There was still a school in Cleveland, MS segregated until 2016. Redlining was (is?) enforced well after it was banned in 1968. These effects are closer than you think. \nSome quality reading for you to learn why your logic fails: \n\"Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality\" - Oliver & Shapiro \n\"Medical Apartheid\" - Harriet A. Washington\n\"Progress for the Poor\" - Lane Kenworthy\n\"The New Jim Crow\" - Michelle Alexander", ">\n\nI can certainly see your point but why is equity your target and not equality? \nFrom a non-american perspective the answer seems decently simple. Use the money that you would use in handouts to build systems that raise the opportunity people have access to.\nNow only using handout money might not be enough but there are a lot of other places where you can delegate money from. Not the military cuz it secures general global peace(more peaceful now than practically any other period in his history since Pax Romana. \nYou could use the money usually used for foreign aid to help your own citizens. It might sound cynical but the highest priority of any well working nation should be its own people and when a lot of them are struggling then that should take precedence over foreign aid.\nUse all that gathered money to create institutions like NAV( Norwegian system that helps people get jobs and education and they get a monthly allowance that they can live on until they don't need it anymore) \nI'm no politician but surely there are better ways to secure equality for its own citizens.", ">\n\nBecause the US has equality on paper more or less, and yet a lot of people are still struggling. I want something near economic equity because I don't want people to suffer, and we should help those who can't help themselves, my problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.", ">\n\n\nmy problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.\n\nnobody's doing that, you only think they are because you don't want to acknowledge the effect racism has on opportunities for minorities, and keep desperately trying to claim its all purely based on racial backgrounds as if that's the only factor.", ">\n\nUmm wtf. Trevor Noah grew up very poor in apartheid South Africa. If you are trying to come up with some poster child for people raised with a silver spoon in their mouth and never discriminated on based on his race he is not it.", ">\n\nIt’s because you can’t erase bias in humans, and in all of these programs humans are decision makers. When you have group A in control and they administrate a program, the benefits will skew toward group A because of human nature. It happens subconsciously if not consciously.\nSo if we start from the premise that different races, ethnicities and genders have similar abilities sufficient for similar capacity for achievement, and we observe that groups B, C, etc are disproportionately disadvantaged, the only way to actually address that is to purposefully facilitate a change.\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”, Ibram Kendi says (paraphrasing) that because of this, every policy either explicitly combats racism in this way or it implicitly promotes existing racism by not doing so. It’s a good book.\nThe Cletus comment was pretty lame btw. And biased. For all you know that guy’s IQ is higher than yours.", ">\n\n\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”,\n\nFrom the same author who openly criticised interracial adoption. Opinion disregarded.", ">\n\nI believe what he said is that adopting children of other races doesn’t mean you can’t act racist. It was a bad tweet. It doesn’t have anything to do with this argument.", ">\n\nBut certain races also face verifiable additional hardships due to their race.", ">\n\nCertain races are stuck in certain classes due to systemic racism, but now it’s less about the race and more about being stuck in a class.\nSo let’s focus on helping out people based on class (because that has the highest impact on one’s life).\nIn other words, a rich black person should not be receiving more handouts than a poor white person. Let’s focus on class." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?", ">\n\nThe difference is that your place of birth or the poverty level of your parents and all the other factors I listed are circumstances surrounding you and your inherent qualities in you like race is.", ">\n\nBut being born into a given race is literally a circumstance of birth conveyed upon you by your parents. What makes race more “inherent” than poverty? And why should we be rendering assistance to things which are merely “circumstantial” as opposed to “inherent”. I’m not sure the distinction is real or important, but to the extent that it is, doesn’t the “inherent” category require more assistance?", ">\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.", ">\n\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \n\nSo you're switching positions? You're saying that we should help based on inherent characteristics but not circumstantial characteristics like poverty, family background, nationality, etc.?\n\nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.\n\nYou've just flipped your whole reasoning. So now you say we should only be helping people with disabilities and not those other categories then?", ">\n\nWe absolutely should help people based on both inherent and circumstantial characteristics that disadvantage them, that was never in contention, the point of the CMV is that skin color is not an inherent disadvantage, to claim it is puts it in the same category as birth defects and mental illnesses, and we shouldn't take it into account when assisting people. \nDo you enjoy purposefully interpreting my every statement in the worst possible light? All this conversation did is reiterate the body of the post, thanks.", ">\n\nThis logic makes no sense. One is not arguing that race is an inherent disadvantage in a physiological manner, but in a social manner. Race is a social construct that is used to group people. In many places, especially America, this social construct has been used to explicitly and implicitly harm these groups throughout history. Thus, one's race is an inherit disadvantage or advantage, not based on physiological differences, but social ones. You basically argue that saying race can be a disadvantage is supporting eugenics, which is far from the truth. \nMany people get frustrated when they feel cheated, but in every class, from dirt poor to filthy rich, non-white individuals face far more challenges in America than white ones. This is a fact. \nFurther, there are little to no government handouts based on race. America has one of the worst social safety nets in the western world, despite the highest GDP per capita in the world. If you are truly concerned about poverty you should look into issues like universal healthcare, changing the way we measure poverty (it is archaic, obsolete and fails many) and wealth inequality (see gini index). Few argue for your so called \"race-based handouts\" unless you're referring to reparations which is not a proposed solution to poverty but a justice initiative. You may be conflating \"handouts\" with affirmative action which aims to address issues created by historical discrimination, racism and segregation in education (and housing among other areas). \nI do not understand the issue with helping a group of people that have far more challenges than others? Slavery was not that long ago. Many older black Americans have grandparents who were slaves, legal discrimination/segregation has only been abolished for 60-70 years. There was still a school in Cleveland, MS segregated until 2016. Redlining was (is?) enforced well after it was banned in 1968. These effects are closer than you think. \nSome quality reading for you to learn why your logic fails: \n\"Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality\" - Oliver & Shapiro \n\"Medical Apartheid\" - Harriet A. Washington\n\"Progress for the Poor\" - Lane Kenworthy\n\"The New Jim Crow\" - Michelle Alexander", ">\n\nI can certainly see your point but why is equity your target and not equality? \nFrom a non-american perspective the answer seems decently simple. Use the money that you would use in handouts to build systems that raise the opportunity people have access to.\nNow only using handout money might not be enough but there are a lot of other places where you can delegate money from. Not the military cuz it secures general global peace(more peaceful now than practically any other period in his history since Pax Romana. \nYou could use the money usually used for foreign aid to help your own citizens. It might sound cynical but the highest priority of any well working nation should be its own people and when a lot of them are struggling then that should take precedence over foreign aid.\nUse all that gathered money to create institutions like NAV( Norwegian system that helps people get jobs and education and they get a monthly allowance that they can live on until they don't need it anymore) \nI'm no politician but surely there are better ways to secure equality for its own citizens.", ">\n\nBecause the US has equality on paper more or less, and yet a lot of people are still struggling. I want something near economic equity because I don't want people to suffer, and we should help those who can't help themselves, my problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.", ">\n\n\nmy problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.\n\nnobody's doing that, you only think they are because you don't want to acknowledge the effect racism has on opportunities for minorities, and keep desperately trying to claim its all purely based on racial backgrounds as if that's the only factor.", ">\n\nUmm wtf. Trevor Noah grew up very poor in apartheid South Africa. If you are trying to come up with some poster child for people raised with a silver spoon in their mouth and never discriminated on based on his race he is not it.", ">\n\nIt’s because you can’t erase bias in humans, and in all of these programs humans are decision makers. When you have group A in control and they administrate a program, the benefits will skew toward group A because of human nature. It happens subconsciously if not consciously.\nSo if we start from the premise that different races, ethnicities and genders have similar abilities sufficient for similar capacity for achievement, and we observe that groups B, C, etc are disproportionately disadvantaged, the only way to actually address that is to purposefully facilitate a change.\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”, Ibram Kendi says (paraphrasing) that because of this, every policy either explicitly combats racism in this way or it implicitly promotes existing racism by not doing so. It’s a good book.\nThe Cletus comment was pretty lame btw. And biased. For all you know that guy’s IQ is higher than yours.", ">\n\n\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”,\n\nFrom the same author who openly criticised interracial adoption. Opinion disregarded.", ">\n\nI believe what he said is that adopting children of other races doesn’t mean you can’t act racist. It was a bad tweet. It doesn’t have anything to do with this argument.", ">\n\nBut certain races also face verifiable additional hardships due to their race.", ">\n\nCertain races are stuck in certain classes due to systemic racism, but now it’s less about the race and more about being stuck in a class.\nSo let’s focus on helping out people based on class (because that has the highest impact on one’s life).\nIn other words, a rich black person should not be receiving more handouts than a poor white person. Let’s focus on class.", ">\n\nThey don't" ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?", ">\n\nThe difference is that your place of birth or the poverty level of your parents and all the other factors I listed are circumstances surrounding you and your inherent qualities in you like race is.", ">\n\nBut being born into a given race is literally a circumstance of birth conveyed upon you by your parents. What makes race more “inherent” than poverty? And why should we be rendering assistance to things which are merely “circumstantial” as opposed to “inherent”. I’m not sure the distinction is real or important, but to the extent that it is, doesn’t the “inherent” category require more assistance?", ">\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.", ">\n\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \n\nSo you're switching positions? You're saying that we should help based on inherent characteristics but not circumstantial characteristics like poverty, family background, nationality, etc.?\n\nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.\n\nYou've just flipped your whole reasoning. So now you say we should only be helping people with disabilities and not those other categories then?", ">\n\nWe absolutely should help people based on both inherent and circumstantial characteristics that disadvantage them, that was never in contention, the point of the CMV is that skin color is not an inherent disadvantage, to claim it is puts it in the same category as birth defects and mental illnesses, and we shouldn't take it into account when assisting people. \nDo you enjoy purposefully interpreting my every statement in the worst possible light? All this conversation did is reiterate the body of the post, thanks.", ">\n\nThis logic makes no sense. One is not arguing that race is an inherent disadvantage in a physiological manner, but in a social manner. Race is a social construct that is used to group people. In many places, especially America, this social construct has been used to explicitly and implicitly harm these groups throughout history. Thus, one's race is an inherit disadvantage or advantage, not based on physiological differences, but social ones. You basically argue that saying race can be a disadvantage is supporting eugenics, which is far from the truth. \nMany people get frustrated when they feel cheated, but in every class, from dirt poor to filthy rich, non-white individuals face far more challenges in America than white ones. This is a fact. \nFurther, there are little to no government handouts based on race. America has one of the worst social safety nets in the western world, despite the highest GDP per capita in the world. If you are truly concerned about poverty you should look into issues like universal healthcare, changing the way we measure poverty (it is archaic, obsolete and fails many) and wealth inequality (see gini index). Few argue for your so called \"race-based handouts\" unless you're referring to reparations which is not a proposed solution to poverty but a justice initiative. You may be conflating \"handouts\" with affirmative action which aims to address issues created by historical discrimination, racism and segregation in education (and housing among other areas). \nI do not understand the issue with helping a group of people that have far more challenges than others? Slavery was not that long ago. Many older black Americans have grandparents who were slaves, legal discrimination/segregation has only been abolished for 60-70 years. There was still a school in Cleveland, MS segregated until 2016. Redlining was (is?) enforced well after it was banned in 1968. These effects are closer than you think. \nSome quality reading for you to learn why your logic fails: \n\"Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality\" - Oliver & Shapiro \n\"Medical Apartheid\" - Harriet A. Washington\n\"Progress for the Poor\" - Lane Kenworthy\n\"The New Jim Crow\" - Michelle Alexander", ">\n\nI can certainly see your point but why is equity your target and not equality? \nFrom a non-american perspective the answer seems decently simple. Use the money that you would use in handouts to build systems that raise the opportunity people have access to.\nNow only using handout money might not be enough but there are a lot of other places where you can delegate money from. Not the military cuz it secures general global peace(more peaceful now than practically any other period in his history since Pax Romana. \nYou could use the money usually used for foreign aid to help your own citizens. It might sound cynical but the highest priority of any well working nation should be its own people and when a lot of them are struggling then that should take precedence over foreign aid.\nUse all that gathered money to create institutions like NAV( Norwegian system that helps people get jobs and education and they get a monthly allowance that they can live on until they don't need it anymore) \nI'm no politician but surely there are better ways to secure equality for its own citizens.", ">\n\nBecause the US has equality on paper more or less, and yet a lot of people are still struggling. I want something near economic equity because I don't want people to suffer, and we should help those who can't help themselves, my problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.", ">\n\n\nmy problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.\n\nnobody's doing that, you only think they are because you don't want to acknowledge the effect racism has on opportunities for minorities, and keep desperately trying to claim its all purely based on racial backgrounds as if that's the only factor.", ">\n\nUmm wtf. Trevor Noah grew up very poor in apartheid South Africa. If you are trying to come up with some poster child for people raised with a silver spoon in their mouth and never discriminated on based on his race he is not it.", ">\n\nIt’s because you can’t erase bias in humans, and in all of these programs humans are decision makers. When you have group A in control and they administrate a program, the benefits will skew toward group A because of human nature. It happens subconsciously if not consciously.\nSo if we start from the premise that different races, ethnicities and genders have similar abilities sufficient for similar capacity for achievement, and we observe that groups B, C, etc are disproportionately disadvantaged, the only way to actually address that is to purposefully facilitate a change.\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”, Ibram Kendi says (paraphrasing) that because of this, every policy either explicitly combats racism in this way or it implicitly promotes existing racism by not doing so. It’s a good book.\nThe Cletus comment was pretty lame btw. And biased. For all you know that guy’s IQ is higher than yours.", ">\n\n\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”,\n\nFrom the same author who openly criticised interracial adoption. Opinion disregarded.", ">\n\nI believe what he said is that adopting children of other races doesn’t mean you can’t act racist. It was a bad tweet. It doesn’t have anything to do with this argument.", ">\n\nBut certain races also face verifiable additional hardships due to their race.", ">\n\nCertain races are stuck in certain classes due to systemic racism, but now it’s less about the race and more about being stuck in a class.\nSo let’s focus on helping out people based on class (because that has the highest impact on one’s life).\nIn other words, a rich black person should not be receiving more handouts than a poor white person. Let’s focus on class.", ">\n\nThey don't", ">\n\nThey do though. If a black kid has rich parents but for some odd reason they don't wanna pay for his college tuition, the black kid will have access to far more scholarships than a white kid with poor parents who actually NEEDS the scholarship." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?", ">\n\nThe difference is that your place of birth or the poverty level of your parents and all the other factors I listed are circumstances surrounding you and your inherent qualities in you like race is.", ">\n\nBut being born into a given race is literally a circumstance of birth conveyed upon you by your parents. What makes race more “inherent” than poverty? And why should we be rendering assistance to things which are merely “circumstantial” as opposed to “inherent”. I’m not sure the distinction is real or important, but to the extent that it is, doesn’t the “inherent” category require more assistance?", ">\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.", ">\n\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \n\nSo you're switching positions? You're saying that we should help based on inherent characteristics but not circumstantial characteristics like poverty, family background, nationality, etc.?\n\nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.\n\nYou've just flipped your whole reasoning. So now you say we should only be helping people with disabilities and not those other categories then?", ">\n\nWe absolutely should help people based on both inherent and circumstantial characteristics that disadvantage them, that was never in contention, the point of the CMV is that skin color is not an inherent disadvantage, to claim it is puts it in the same category as birth defects and mental illnesses, and we shouldn't take it into account when assisting people. \nDo you enjoy purposefully interpreting my every statement in the worst possible light? All this conversation did is reiterate the body of the post, thanks.", ">\n\nThis logic makes no sense. One is not arguing that race is an inherent disadvantage in a physiological manner, but in a social manner. Race is a social construct that is used to group people. In many places, especially America, this social construct has been used to explicitly and implicitly harm these groups throughout history. Thus, one's race is an inherit disadvantage or advantage, not based on physiological differences, but social ones. You basically argue that saying race can be a disadvantage is supporting eugenics, which is far from the truth. \nMany people get frustrated when they feel cheated, but in every class, from dirt poor to filthy rich, non-white individuals face far more challenges in America than white ones. This is a fact. \nFurther, there are little to no government handouts based on race. America has one of the worst social safety nets in the western world, despite the highest GDP per capita in the world. If you are truly concerned about poverty you should look into issues like universal healthcare, changing the way we measure poverty (it is archaic, obsolete and fails many) and wealth inequality (see gini index). Few argue for your so called \"race-based handouts\" unless you're referring to reparations which is not a proposed solution to poverty but a justice initiative. You may be conflating \"handouts\" with affirmative action which aims to address issues created by historical discrimination, racism and segregation in education (and housing among other areas). \nI do not understand the issue with helping a group of people that have far more challenges than others? Slavery was not that long ago. Many older black Americans have grandparents who were slaves, legal discrimination/segregation has only been abolished for 60-70 years. There was still a school in Cleveland, MS segregated until 2016. Redlining was (is?) enforced well after it was banned in 1968. These effects are closer than you think. \nSome quality reading for you to learn why your logic fails: \n\"Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality\" - Oliver & Shapiro \n\"Medical Apartheid\" - Harriet A. Washington\n\"Progress for the Poor\" - Lane Kenworthy\n\"The New Jim Crow\" - Michelle Alexander", ">\n\nI can certainly see your point but why is equity your target and not equality? \nFrom a non-american perspective the answer seems decently simple. Use the money that you would use in handouts to build systems that raise the opportunity people have access to.\nNow only using handout money might not be enough but there are a lot of other places where you can delegate money from. Not the military cuz it secures general global peace(more peaceful now than practically any other period in his history since Pax Romana. \nYou could use the money usually used for foreign aid to help your own citizens. It might sound cynical but the highest priority of any well working nation should be its own people and when a lot of them are struggling then that should take precedence over foreign aid.\nUse all that gathered money to create institutions like NAV( Norwegian system that helps people get jobs and education and they get a monthly allowance that they can live on until they don't need it anymore) \nI'm no politician but surely there are better ways to secure equality for its own citizens.", ">\n\nBecause the US has equality on paper more or less, and yet a lot of people are still struggling. I want something near economic equity because I don't want people to suffer, and we should help those who can't help themselves, my problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.", ">\n\n\nmy problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.\n\nnobody's doing that, you only think they are because you don't want to acknowledge the effect racism has on opportunities for minorities, and keep desperately trying to claim its all purely based on racial backgrounds as if that's the only factor.", ">\n\nUmm wtf. Trevor Noah grew up very poor in apartheid South Africa. If you are trying to come up with some poster child for people raised with a silver spoon in their mouth and never discriminated on based on his race he is not it.", ">\n\nIt’s because you can’t erase bias in humans, and in all of these programs humans are decision makers. When you have group A in control and they administrate a program, the benefits will skew toward group A because of human nature. It happens subconsciously if not consciously.\nSo if we start from the premise that different races, ethnicities and genders have similar abilities sufficient for similar capacity for achievement, and we observe that groups B, C, etc are disproportionately disadvantaged, the only way to actually address that is to purposefully facilitate a change.\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”, Ibram Kendi says (paraphrasing) that because of this, every policy either explicitly combats racism in this way or it implicitly promotes existing racism by not doing so. It’s a good book.\nThe Cletus comment was pretty lame btw. And biased. For all you know that guy’s IQ is higher than yours.", ">\n\n\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”,\n\nFrom the same author who openly criticised interracial adoption. Opinion disregarded.", ">\n\nI believe what he said is that adopting children of other races doesn’t mean you can’t act racist. It was a bad tweet. It doesn’t have anything to do with this argument.", ">\n\nBut certain races also face verifiable additional hardships due to their race.", ">\n\nCertain races are stuck in certain classes due to systemic racism, but now it’s less about the race and more about being stuck in a class.\nSo let’s focus on helping out people based on class (because that has the highest impact on one’s life).\nIn other words, a rich black person should not be receiving more handouts than a poor white person. Let’s focus on class.", ">\n\nThey don't", ">\n\nThey do though. If a black kid has rich parents but for some odd reason they don't wanna pay for his college tuition, the black kid will have access to far more scholarships than a white kid with poor parents who actually NEEDS the scholarship.", ">\n\n… you realize majority of these scholarships still look At financial need? They don’t just look at race. They aren’t giving them to rich black students, they are giving it to poor black students." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?", ">\n\nThe difference is that your place of birth or the poverty level of your parents and all the other factors I listed are circumstances surrounding you and your inherent qualities in you like race is.", ">\n\nBut being born into a given race is literally a circumstance of birth conveyed upon you by your parents. What makes race more “inherent” than poverty? And why should we be rendering assistance to things which are merely “circumstantial” as opposed to “inherent”. I’m not sure the distinction is real or important, but to the extent that it is, doesn’t the “inherent” category require more assistance?", ">\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.", ">\n\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \n\nSo you're switching positions? You're saying that we should help based on inherent characteristics but not circumstantial characteristics like poverty, family background, nationality, etc.?\n\nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.\n\nYou've just flipped your whole reasoning. So now you say we should only be helping people with disabilities and not those other categories then?", ">\n\nWe absolutely should help people based on both inherent and circumstantial characteristics that disadvantage them, that was never in contention, the point of the CMV is that skin color is not an inherent disadvantage, to claim it is puts it in the same category as birth defects and mental illnesses, and we shouldn't take it into account when assisting people. \nDo you enjoy purposefully interpreting my every statement in the worst possible light? All this conversation did is reiterate the body of the post, thanks.", ">\n\nThis logic makes no sense. One is not arguing that race is an inherent disadvantage in a physiological manner, but in a social manner. Race is a social construct that is used to group people. In many places, especially America, this social construct has been used to explicitly and implicitly harm these groups throughout history. Thus, one's race is an inherit disadvantage or advantage, not based on physiological differences, but social ones. You basically argue that saying race can be a disadvantage is supporting eugenics, which is far from the truth. \nMany people get frustrated when they feel cheated, but in every class, from dirt poor to filthy rich, non-white individuals face far more challenges in America than white ones. This is a fact. \nFurther, there are little to no government handouts based on race. America has one of the worst social safety nets in the western world, despite the highest GDP per capita in the world. If you are truly concerned about poverty you should look into issues like universal healthcare, changing the way we measure poverty (it is archaic, obsolete and fails many) and wealth inequality (see gini index). Few argue for your so called \"race-based handouts\" unless you're referring to reparations which is not a proposed solution to poverty but a justice initiative. You may be conflating \"handouts\" with affirmative action which aims to address issues created by historical discrimination, racism and segregation in education (and housing among other areas). \nI do not understand the issue with helping a group of people that have far more challenges than others? Slavery was not that long ago. Many older black Americans have grandparents who were slaves, legal discrimination/segregation has only been abolished for 60-70 years. There was still a school in Cleveland, MS segregated until 2016. Redlining was (is?) enforced well after it was banned in 1968. These effects are closer than you think. \nSome quality reading for you to learn why your logic fails: \n\"Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality\" - Oliver & Shapiro \n\"Medical Apartheid\" - Harriet A. Washington\n\"Progress for the Poor\" - Lane Kenworthy\n\"The New Jim Crow\" - Michelle Alexander", ">\n\nI can certainly see your point but why is equity your target and not equality? \nFrom a non-american perspective the answer seems decently simple. Use the money that you would use in handouts to build systems that raise the opportunity people have access to.\nNow only using handout money might not be enough but there are a lot of other places where you can delegate money from. Not the military cuz it secures general global peace(more peaceful now than practically any other period in his history since Pax Romana. \nYou could use the money usually used for foreign aid to help your own citizens. It might sound cynical but the highest priority of any well working nation should be its own people and when a lot of them are struggling then that should take precedence over foreign aid.\nUse all that gathered money to create institutions like NAV( Norwegian system that helps people get jobs and education and they get a monthly allowance that they can live on until they don't need it anymore) \nI'm no politician but surely there are better ways to secure equality for its own citizens.", ">\n\nBecause the US has equality on paper more or less, and yet a lot of people are still struggling. I want something near economic equity because I don't want people to suffer, and we should help those who can't help themselves, my problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.", ">\n\n\nmy problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.\n\nnobody's doing that, you only think they are because you don't want to acknowledge the effect racism has on opportunities for minorities, and keep desperately trying to claim its all purely based on racial backgrounds as if that's the only factor.", ">\n\nUmm wtf. Trevor Noah grew up very poor in apartheid South Africa. If you are trying to come up with some poster child for people raised with a silver spoon in their mouth and never discriminated on based on his race he is not it.", ">\n\nIt’s because you can’t erase bias in humans, and in all of these programs humans are decision makers. When you have group A in control and they administrate a program, the benefits will skew toward group A because of human nature. It happens subconsciously if not consciously.\nSo if we start from the premise that different races, ethnicities and genders have similar abilities sufficient for similar capacity for achievement, and we observe that groups B, C, etc are disproportionately disadvantaged, the only way to actually address that is to purposefully facilitate a change.\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”, Ibram Kendi says (paraphrasing) that because of this, every policy either explicitly combats racism in this way or it implicitly promotes existing racism by not doing so. It’s a good book.\nThe Cletus comment was pretty lame btw. And biased. For all you know that guy’s IQ is higher than yours.", ">\n\n\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”,\n\nFrom the same author who openly criticised interracial adoption. Opinion disregarded.", ">\n\nI believe what he said is that adopting children of other races doesn’t mean you can’t act racist. It was a bad tweet. It doesn’t have anything to do with this argument.", ">\n\nBut certain races also face verifiable additional hardships due to their race.", ">\n\nCertain races are stuck in certain classes due to systemic racism, but now it’s less about the race and more about being stuck in a class.\nSo let’s focus on helping out people based on class (because that has the highest impact on one’s life).\nIn other words, a rich black person should not be receiving more handouts than a poor white person. Let’s focus on class.", ">\n\nThey don't", ">\n\nThey do though. If a black kid has rich parents but for some odd reason they don't wanna pay for his college tuition, the black kid will have access to far more scholarships than a white kid with poor parents who actually NEEDS the scholarship.", ">\n\n… you realize majority of these scholarships still look At financial need? They don’t just look at race. They aren’t giving them to rich black students, they are giving it to poor black students.", ">\n\nNo, treating everyone equally is racist." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?", ">\n\nThe difference is that your place of birth or the poverty level of your parents and all the other factors I listed are circumstances surrounding you and your inherent qualities in you like race is.", ">\n\nBut being born into a given race is literally a circumstance of birth conveyed upon you by your parents. What makes race more “inherent” than poverty? And why should we be rendering assistance to things which are merely “circumstantial” as opposed to “inherent”. I’m not sure the distinction is real or important, but to the extent that it is, doesn’t the “inherent” category require more assistance?", ">\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.", ">\n\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \n\nSo you're switching positions? You're saying that we should help based on inherent characteristics but not circumstantial characteristics like poverty, family background, nationality, etc.?\n\nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.\n\nYou've just flipped your whole reasoning. So now you say we should only be helping people with disabilities and not those other categories then?", ">\n\nWe absolutely should help people based on both inherent and circumstantial characteristics that disadvantage them, that was never in contention, the point of the CMV is that skin color is not an inherent disadvantage, to claim it is puts it in the same category as birth defects and mental illnesses, and we shouldn't take it into account when assisting people. \nDo you enjoy purposefully interpreting my every statement in the worst possible light? All this conversation did is reiterate the body of the post, thanks.", ">\n\nThis logic makes no sense. One is not arguing that race is an inherent disadvantage in a physiological manner, but in a social manner. Race is a social construct that is used to group people. In many places, especially America, this social construct has been used to explicitly and implicitly harm these groups throughout history. Thus, one's race is an inherit disadvantage or advantage, not based on physiological differences, but social ones. You basically argue that saying race can be a disadvantage is supporting eugenics, which is far from the truth. \nMany people get frustrated when they feel cheated, but in every class, from dirt poor to filthy rich, non-white individuals face far more challenges in America than white ones. This is a fact. \nFurther, there are little to no government handouts based on race. America has one of the worst social safety nets in the western world, despite the highest GDP per capita in the world. If you are truly concerned about poverty you should look into issues like universal healthcare, changing the way we measure poverty (it is archaic, obsolete and fails many) and wealth inequality (see gini index). Few argue for your so called \"race-based handouts\" unless you're referring to reparations which is not a proposed solution to poverty but a justice initiative. You may be conflating \"handouts\" with affirmative action which aims to address issues created by historical discrimination, racism and segregation in education (and housing among other areas). \nI do not understand the issue with helping a group of people that have far more challenges than others? Slavery was not that long ago. Many older black Americans have grandparents who were slaves, legal discrimination/segregation has only been abolished for 60-70 years. There was still a school in Cleveland, MS segregated until 2016. Redlining was (is?) enforced well after it was banned in 1968. These effects are closer than you think. \nSome quality reading for you to learn why your logic fails: \n\"Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality\" - Oliver & Shapiro \n\"Medical Apartheid\" - Harriet A. Washington\n\"Progress for the Poor\" - Lane Kenworthy\n\"The New Jim Crow\" - Michelle Alexander", ">\n\nI can certainly see your point but why is equity your target and not equality? \nFrom a non-american perspective the answer seems decently simple. Use the money that you would use in handouts to build systems that raise the opportunity people have access to.\nNow only using handout money might not be enough but there are a lot of other places where you can delegate money from. Not the military cuz it secures general global peace(more peaceful now than practically any other period in his history since Pax Romana. \nYou could use the money usually used for foreign aid to help your own citizens. It might sound cynical but the highest priority of any well working nation should be its own people and when a lot of them are struggling then that should take precedence over foreign aid.\nUse all that gathered money to create institutions like NAV( Norwegian system that helps people get jobs and education and they get a monthly allowance that they can live on until they don't need it anymore) \nI'm no politician but surely there are better ways to secure equality for its own citizens.", ">\n\nBecause the US has equality on paper more or less, and yet a lot of people are still struggling. I want something near economic equity because I don't want people to suffer, and we should help those who can't help themselves, my problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.", ">\n\n\nmy problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.\n\nnobody's doing that, you only think they are because you don't want to acknowledge the effect racism has on opportunities for minorities, and keep desperately trying to claim its all purely based on racial backgrounds as if that's the only factor.", ">\n\nUmm wtf. Trevor Noah grew up very poor in apartheid South Africa. If you are trying to come up with some poster child for people raised with a silver spoon in their mouth and never discriminated on based on his race he is not it.", ">\n\nIt’s because you can’t erase bias in humans, and in all of these programs humans are decision makers. When you have group A in control and they administrate a program, the benefits will skew toward group A because of human nature. It happens subconsciously if not consciously.\nSo if we start from the premise that different races, ethnicities and genders have similar abilities sufficient for similar capacity for achievement, and we observe that groups B, C, etc are disproportionately disadvantaged, the only way to actually address that is to purposefully facilitate a change.\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”, Ibram Kendi says (paraphrasing) that because of this, every policy either explicitly combats racism in this way or it implicitly promotes existing racism by not doing so. It’s a good book.\nThe Cletus comment was pretty lame btw. And biased. For all you know that guy’s IQ is higher than yours.", ">\n\n\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”,\n\nFrom the same author who openly criticised interracial adoption. Opinion disregarded.", ">\n\nI believe what he said is that adopting children of other races doesn’t mean you can’t act racist. It was a bad tweet. It doesn’t have anything to do with this argument.", ">\n\nBut certain races also face verifiable additional hardships due to their race.", ">\n\nCertain races are stuck in certain classes due to systemic racism, but now it’s less about the race and more about being stuck in a class.\nSo let’s focus on helping out people based on class (because that has the highest impact on one’s life).\nIn other words, a rich black person should not be receiving more handouts than a poor white person. Let’s focus on class.", ">\n\nThey don't", ">\n\nThey do though. If a black kid has rich parents but for some odd reason they don't wanna pay for his college tuition, the black kid will have access to far more scholarships than a white kid with poor parents who actually NEEDS the scholarship.", ">\n\n… you realize majority of these scholarships still look At financial need? They don’t just look at race. They aren’t giving them to rich black students, they are giving it to poor black students.", ">\n\nNo, treating everyone equally is racist.", ">\n\nHow?" ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?", ">\n\nThe difference is that your place of birth or the poverty level of your parents and all the other factors I listed are circumstances surrounding you and your inherent qualities in you like race is.", ">\n\nBut being born into a given race is literally a circumstance of birth conveyed upon you by your parents. What makes race more “inherent” than poverty? And why should we be rendering assistance to things which are merely “circumstantial” as opposed to “inherent”. I’m not sure the distinction is real or important, but to the extent that it is, doesn’t the “inherent” category require more assistance?", ">\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.", ">\n\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \n\nSo you're switching positions? You're saying that we should help based on inherent characteristics but not circumstantial characteristics like poverty, family background, nationality, etc.?\n\nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.\n\nYou've just flipped your whole reasoning. So now you say we should only be helping people with disabilities and not those other categories then?", ">\n\nWe absolutely should help people based on both inherent and circumstantial characteristics that disadvantage them, that was never in contention, the point of the CMV is that skin color is not an inherent disadvantage, to claim it is puts it in the same category as birth defects and mental illnesses, and we shouldn't take it into account when assisting people. \nDo you enjoy purposefully interpreting my every statement in the worst possible light? All this conversation did is reiterate the body of the post, thanks.", ">\n\nThis logic makes no sense. One is not arguing that race is an inherent disadvantage in a physiological manner, but in a social manner. Race is a social construct that is used to group people. In many places, especially America, this social construct has been used to explicitly and implicitly harm these groups throughout history. Thus, one's race is an inherit disadvantage or advantage, not based on physiological differences, but social ones. You basically argue that saying race can be a disadvantage is supporting eugenics, which is far from the truth. \nMany people get frustrated when they feel cheated, but in every class, from dirt poor to filthy rich, non-white individuals face far more challenges in America than white ones. This is a fact. \nFurther, there are little to no government handouts based on race. America has one of the worst social safety nets in the western world, despite the highest GDP per capita in the world. If you are truly concerned about poverty you should look into issues like universal healthcare, changing the way we measure poverty (it is archaic, obsolete and fails many) and wealth inequality (see gini index). Few argue for your so called \"race-based handouts\" unless you're referring to reparations which is not a proposed solution to poverty but a justice initiative. You may be conflating \"handouts\" with affirmative action which aims to address issues created by historical discrimination, racism and segregation in education (and housing among other areas). \nI do not understand the issue with helping a group of people that have far more challenges than others? Slavery was not that long ago. Many older black Americans have grandparents who were slaves, legal discrimination/segregation has only been abolished for 60-70 years. There was still a school in Cleveland, MS segregated until 2016. Redlining was (is?) enforced well after it was banned in 1968. These effects are closer than you think. \nSome quality reading for you to learn why your logic fails: \n\"Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality\" - Oliver & Shapiro \n\"Medical Apartheid\" - Harriet A. Washington\n\"Progress for the Poor\" - Lane Kenworthy\n\"The New Jim Crow\" - Michelle Alexander", ">\n\nI can certainly see your point but why is equity your target and not equality? \nFrom a non-american perspective the answer seems decently simple. Use the money that you would use in handouts to build systems that raise the opportunity people have access to.\nNow only using handout money might not be enough but there are a lot of other places where you can delegate money from. Not the military cuz it secures general global peace(more peaceful now than practically any other period in his history since Pax Romana. \nYou could use the money usually used for foreign aid to help your own citizens. It might sound cynical but the highest priority of any well working nation should be its own people and when a lot of them are struggling then that should take precedence over foreign aid.\nUse all that gathered money to create institutions like NAV( Norwegian system that helps people get jobs and education and they get a monthly allowance that they can live on until they don't need it anymore) \nI'm no politician but surely there are better ways to secure equality for its own citizens.", ">\n\nBecause the US has equality on paper more or less, and yet a lot of people are still struggling. I want something near economic equity because I don't want people to suffer, and we should help those who can't help themselves, my problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.", ">\n\n\nmy problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.\n\nnobody's doing that, you only think they are because you don't want to acknowledge the effect racism has on opportunities for minorities, and keep desperately trying to claim its all purely based on racial backgrounds as if that's the only factor.", ">\n\nUmm wtf. Trevor Noah grew up very poor in apartheid South Africa. If you are trying to come up with some poster child for people raised with a silver spoon in their mouth and never discriminated on based on his race he is not it.", ">\n\nIt’s because you can’t erase bias in humans, and in all of these programs humans are decision makers. When you have group A in control and they administrate a program, the benefits will skew toward group A because of human nature. It happens subconsciously if not consciously.\nSo if we start from the premise that different races, ethnicities and genders have similar abilities sufficient for similar capacity for achievement, and we observe that groups B, C, etc are disproportionately disadvantaged, the only way to actually address that is to purposefully facilitate a change.\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”, Ibram Kendi says (paraphrasing) that because of this, every policy either explicitly combats racism in this way or it implicitly promotes existing racism by not doing so. It’s a good book.\nThe Cletus comment was pretty lame btw. And biased. For all you know that guy’s IQ is higher than yours.", ">\n\n\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”,\n\nFrom the same author who openly criticised interracial adoption. Opinion disregarded.", ">\n\nI believe what he said is that adopting children of other races doesn’t mean you can’t act racist. It was a bad tweet. It doesn’t have anything to do with this argument.", ">\n\nBut certain races also face verifiable additional hardships due to their race.", ">\n\nCertain races are stuck in certain classes due to systemic racism, but now it’s less about the race and more about being stuck in a class.\nSo let’s focus on helping out people based on class (because that has the highest impact on one’s life).\nIn other words, a rich black person should not be receiving more handouts than a poor white person. Let’s focus on class.", ">\n\nThey don't", ">\n\nThey do though. If a black kid has rich parents but for some odd reason they don't wanna pay for his college tuition, the black kid will have access to far more scholarships than a white kid with poor parents who actually NEEDS the scholarship.", ">\n\n… you realize majority of these scholarships still look At financial need? They don’t just look at race. They aren’t giving them to rich black students, they are giving it to poor black students.", ">\n\nNo, treating everyone equally is racist.", ">\n\nHow?", ">\n\nI dont know but a bunch of people here are arguing for just that :D" ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?", ">\n\nThe difference is that your place of birth or the poverty level of your parents and all the other factors I listed are circumstances surrounding you and your inherent qualities in you like race is.", ">\n\nBut being born into a given race is literally a circumstance of birth conveyed upon you by your parents. What makes race more “inherent” than poverty? And why should we be rendering assistance to things which are merely “circumstantial” as opposed to “inherent”. I’m not sure the distinction is real or important, but to the extent that it is, doesn’t the “inherent” category require more assistance?", ">\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.", ">\n\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \n\nSo you're switching positions? You're saying that we should help based on inherent characteristics but not circumstantial characteristics like poverty, family background, nationality, etc.?\n\nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.\n\nYou've just flipped your whole reasoning. So now you say we should only be helping people with disabilities and not those other categories then?", ">\n\nWe absolutely should help people based on both inherent and circumstantial characteristics that disadvantage them, that was never in contention, the point of the CMV is that skin color is not an inherent disadvantage, to claim it is puts it in the same category as birth defects and mental illnesses, and we shouldn't take it into account when assisting people. \nDo you enjoy purposefully interpreting my every statement in the worst possible light? All this conversation did is reiterate the body of the post, thanks.", ">\n\nThis logic makes no sense. One is not arguing that race is an inherent disadvantage in a physiological manner, but in a social manner. Race is a social construct that is used to group people. In many places, especially America, this social construct has been used to explicitly and implicitly harm these groups throughout history. Thus, one's race is an inherit disadvantage or advantage, not based on physiological differences, but social ones. You basically argue that saying race can be a disadvantage is supporting eugenics, which is far from the truth. \nMany people get frustrated when they feel cheated, but in every class, from dirt poor to filthy rich, non-white individuals face far more challenges in America than white ones. This is a fact. \nFurther, there are little to no government handouts based on race. America has one of the worst social safety nets in the western world, despite the highest GDP per capita in the world. If you are truly concerned about poverty you should look into issues like universal healthcare, changing the way we measure poverty (it is archaic, obsolete and fails many) and wealth inequality (see gini index). Few argue for your so called \"race-based handouts\" unless you're referring to reparations which is not a proposed solution to poverty but a justice initiative. You may be conflating \"handouts\" with affirmative action which aims to address issues created by historical discrimination, racism and segregation in education (and housing among other areas). \nI do not understand the issue with helping a group of people that have far more challenges than others? Slavery was not that long ago. Many older black Americans have grandparents who were slaves, legal discrimination/segregation has only been abolished for 60-70 years. There was still a school in Cleveland, MS segregated until 2016. Redlining was (is?) enforced well after it was banned in 1968. These effects are closer than you think. \nSome quality reading for you to learn why your logic fails: \n\"Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality\" - Oliver & Shapiro \n\"Medical Apartheid\" - Harriet A. Washington\n\"Progress for the Poor\" - Lane Kenworthy\n\"The New Jim Crow\" - Michelle Alexander", ">\n\nI can certainly see your point but why is equity your target and not equality? \nFrom a non-american perspective the answer seems decently simple. Use the money that you would use in handouts to build systems that raise the opportunity people have access to.\nNow only using handout money might not be enough but there are a lot of other places where you can delegate money from. Not the military cuz it secures general global peace(more peaceful now than practically any other period in his history since Pax Romana. \nYou could use the money usually used for foreign aid to help your own citizens. It might sound cynical but the highest priority of any well working nation should be its own people and when a lot of them are struggling then that should take precedence over foreign aid.\nUse all that gathered money to create institutions like NAV( Norwegian system that helps people get jobs and education and they get a monthly allowance that they can live on until they don't need it anymore) \nI'm no politician but surely there are better ways to secure equality for its own citizens.", ">\n\nBecause the US has equality on paper more or less, and yet a lot of people are still struggling. I want something near economic equity because I don't want people to suffer, and we should help those who can't help themselves, my problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.", ">\n\n\nmy problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.\n\nnobody's doing that, you only think they are because you don't want to acknowledge the effect racism has on opportunities for minorities, and keep desperately trying to claim its all purely based on racial backgrounds as if that's the only factor.", ">\n\nUmm wtf. Trevor Noah grew up very poor in apartheid South Africa. If you are trying to come up with some poster child for people raised with a silver spoon in their mouth and never discriminated on based on his race he is not it.", ">\n\nIt’s because you can’t erase bias in humans, and in all of these programs humans are decision makers. When you have group A in control and they administrate a program, the benefits will skew toward group A because of human nature. It happens subconsciously if not consciously.\nSo if we start from the premise that different races, ethnicities and genders have similar abilities sufficient for similar capacity for achievement, and we observe that groups B, C, etc are disproportionately disadvantaged, the only way to actually address that is to purposefully facilitate a change.\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”, Ibram Kendi says (paraphrasing) that because of this, every policy either explicitly combats racism in this way or it implicitly promotes existing racism by not doing so. It’s a good book.\nThe Cletus comment was pretty lame btw. And biased. For all you know that guy’s IQ is higher than yours.", ">\n\n\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”,\n\nFrom the same author who openly criticised interracial adoption. Opinion disregarded.", ">\n\nI believe what he said is that adopting children of other races doesn’t mean you can’t act racist. It was a bad tweet. It doesn’t have anything to do with this argument.", ">\n\nBut certain races also face verifiable additional hardships due to their race.", ">\n\nCertain races are stuck in certain classes due to systemic racism, but now it’s less about the race and more about being stuck in a class.\nSo let’s focus on helping out people based on class (because that has the highest impact on one’s life).\nIn other words, a rich black person should not be receiving more handouts than a poor white person. Let’s focus on class.", ">\n\nThey don't", ">\n\nThey do though. If a black kid has rich parents but for some odd reason they don't wanna pay for his college tuition, the black kid will have access to far more scholarships than a white kid with poor parents who actually NEEDS the scholarship.", ">\n\n… you realize majority of these scholarships still look At financial need? They don’t just look at race. They aren’t giving them to rich black students, they are giving it to poor black students.", ">\n\nNo, treating everyone equally is racist.", ">\n\nHow?", ">\n\nI dont know but a bunch of people here are arguing for just that :D", ">\n\nIt seems so" ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?", ">\n\nThe difference is that your place of birth or the poverty level of your parents and all the other factors I listed are circumstances surrounding you and your inherent qualities in you like race is.", ">\n\nBut being born into a given race is literally a circumstance of birth conveyed upon you by your parents. What makes race more “inherent” than poverty? And why should we be rendering assistance to things which are merely “circumstantial” as opposed to “inherent”. I’m not sure the distinction is real or important, but to the extent that it is, doesn’t the “inherent” category require more assistance?", ">\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.", ">\n\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \n\nSo you're switching positions? You're saying that we should help based on inherent characteristics but not circumstantial characteristics like poverty, family background, nationality, etc.?\n\nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.\n\nYou've just flipped your whole reasoning. So now you say we should only be helping people with disabilities and not those other categories then?", ">\n\nWe absolutely should help people based on both inherent and circumstantial characteristics that disadvantage them, that was never in contention, the point of the CMV is that skin color is not an inherent disadvantage, to claim it is puts it in the same category as birth defects and mental illnesses, and we shouldn't take it into account when assisting people. \nDo you enjoy purposefully interpreting my every statement in the worst possible light? All this conversation did is reiterate the body of the post, thanks.", ">\n\nThis logic makes no sense. One is not arguing that race is an inherent disadvantage in a physiological manner, but in a social manner. Race is a social construct that is used to group people. In many places, especially America, this social construct has been used to explicitly and implicitly harm these groups throughout history. Thus, one's race is an inherit disadvantage or advantage, not based on physiological differences, but social ones. You basically argue that saying race can be a disadvantage is supporting eugenics, which is far from the truth. \nMany people get frustrated when they feel cheated, but in every class, from dirt poor to filthy rich, non-white individuals face far more challenges in America than white ones. This is a fact. \nFurther, there are little to no government handouts based on race. America has one of the worst social safety nets in the western world, despite the highest GDP per capita in the world. If you are truly concerned about poverty you should look into issues like universal healthcare, changing the way we measure poverty (it is archaic, obsolete and fails many) and wealth inequality (see gini index). Few argue for your so called \"race-based handouts\" unless you're referring to reparations which is not a proposed solution to poverty but a justice initiative. You may be conflating \"handouts\" with affirmative action which aims to address issues created by historical discrimination, racism and segregation in education (and housing among other areas). \nI do not understand the issue with helping a group of people that have far more challenges than others? Slavery was not that long ago. Many older black Americans have grandparents who were slaves, legal discrimination/segregation has only been abolished for 60-70 years. There was still a school in Cleveland, MS segregated until 2016. Redlining was (is?) enforced well after it was banned in 1968. These effects are closer than you think. \nSome quality reading for you to learn why your logic fails: \n\"Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality\" - Oliver & Shapiro \n\"Medical Apartheid\" - Harriet A. Washington\n\"Progress for the Poor\" - Lane Kenworthy\n\"The New Jim Crow\" - Michelle Alexander", ">\n\nI can certainly see your point but why is equity your target and not equality? \nFrom a non-american perspective the answer seems decently simple. Use the money that you would use in handouts to build systems that raise the opportunity people have access to.\nNow only using handout money might not be enough but there are a lot of other places where you can delegate money from. Not the military cuz it secures general global peace(more peaceful now than practically any other period in his history since Pax Romana. \nYou could use the money usually used for foreign aid to help your own citizens. It might sound cynical but the highest priority of any well working nation should be its own people and when a lot of them are struggling then that should take precedence over foreign aid.\nUse all that gathered money to create institutions like NAV( Norwegian system that helps people get jobs and education and they get a monthly allowance that they can live on until they don't need it anymore) \nI'm no politician but surely there are better ways to secure equality for its own citizens.", ">\n\nBecause the US has equality on paper more or less, and yet a lot of people are still struggling. I want something near economic equity because I don't want people to suffer, and we should help those who can't help themselves, my problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.", ">\n\n\nmy problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.\n\nnobody's doing that, you only think they are because you don't want to acknowledge the effect racism has on opportunities for minorities, and keep desperately trying to claim its all purely based on racial backgrounds as if that's the only factor.", ">\n\nUmm wtf. Trevor Noah grew up very poor in apartheid South Africa. If you are trying to come up with some poster child for people raised with a silver spoon in their mouth and never discriminated on based on his race he is not it.", ">\n\nIt’s because you can’t erase bias in humans, and in all of these programs humans are decision makers. When you have group A in control and they administrate a program, the benefits will skew toward group A because of human nature. It happens subconsciously if not consciously.\nSo if we start from the premise that different races, ethnicities and genders have similar abilities sufficient for similar capacity for achievement, and we observe that groups B, C, etc are disproportionately disadvantaged, the only way to actually address that is to purposefully facilitate a change.\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”, Ibram Kendi says (paraphrasing) that because of this, every policy either explicitly combats racism in this way or it implicitly promotes existing racism by not doing so. It’s a good book.\nThe Cletus comment was pretty lame btw. And biased. For all you know that guy’s IQ is higher than yours.", ">\n\n\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”,\n\nFrom the same author who openly criticised interracial adoption. Opinion disregarded.", ">\n\nI believe what he said is that adopting children of other races doesn’t mean you can’t act racist. It was a bad tweet. It doesn’t have anything to do with this argument.", ">\n\nBut certain races also face verifiable additional hardships due to their race.", ">\n\nCertain races are stuck in certain classes due to systemic racism, but now it’s less about the race and more about being stuck in a class.\nSo let’s focus on helping out people based on class (because that has the highest impact on one’s life).\nIn other words, a rich black person should not be receiving more handouts than a poor white person. Let’s focus on class.", ">\n\nThey don't", ">\n\nThey do though. If a black kid has rich parents but for some odd reason they don't wanna pay for his college tuition, the black kid will have access to far more scholarships than a white kid with poor parents who actually NEEDS the scholarship.", ">\n\n… you realize majority of these scholarships still look At financial need? They don’t just look at race. They aren’t giving them to rich black students, they are giving it to poor black students.", ">\n\nNo, treating everyone equally is racist.", ">\n\nHow?", ">\n\nI dont know but a bunch of people here are arguing for just that :D", ">\n\nIt seems so", ">\n\nYou're looking at equity purely in terms of socioeconomic status, as if the only goal of social equity were to make certain groups wealthier. Instead, social equity is intended to build up certain groups to give them the same opportunity as others. Opportunity to pursue happiness however they want, even if it may not necessarily be socioeconomically advantageous (e.g. working in a prestigious research institution studying quantum particles). \nThis brings me to another point, you don't typically need to add equity to something that already has equity. You don't build a nice kitchen in a house that already has a nice kitchen. You build a nice kitchen in a house that's been neglected and needs its value increased. This concept of equity translates to minority groups that have been systematically neglected, or worse systematically torn down. Poor white people may have a rough life, and I fully sympathize with that, but their poverty is not as a result of a centuries-old system that sought to keep them downtrodden. \nCapitalism does play a role in systematically keeping poor people poor, and this applies to any race, gender identity, or sexual orientation. But we need to also be aware that systemic racism contributes an additional burden on black people, which is why they need additional aid from government and institutions to be able to have the same opportunity as a poor white person." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?", ">\n\nThe difference is that your place of birth or the poverty level of your parents and all the other factors I listed are circumstances surrounding you and your inherent qualities in you like race is.", ">\n\nBut being born into a given race is literally a circumstance of birth conveyed upon you by your parents. What makes race more “inherent” than poverty? And why should we be rendering assistance to things which are merely “circumstantial” as opposed to “inherent”. I’m not sure the distinction is real or important, but to the extent that it is, doesn’t the “inherent” category require more assistance?", ">\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.", ">\n\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \n\nSo you're switching positions? You're saying that we should help based on inherent characteristics but not circumstantial characteristics like poverty, family background, nationality, etc.?\n\nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.\n\nYou've just flipped your whole reasoning. So now you say we should only be helping people with disabilities and not those other categories then?", ">\n\nWe absolutely should help people based on both inherent and circumstantial characteristics that disadvantage them, that was never in contention, the point of the CMV is that skin color is not an inherent disadvantage, to claim it is puts it in the same category as birth defects and mental illnesses, and we shouldn't take it into account when assisting people. \nDo you enjoy purposefully interpreting my every statement in the worst possible light? All this conversation did is reiterate the body of the post, thanks.", ">\n\nThis logic makes no sense. One is not arguing that race is an inherent disadvantage in a physiological manner, but in a social manner. Race is a social construct that is used to group people. In many places, especially America, this social construct has been used to explicitly and implicitly harm these groups throughout history. Thus, one's race is an inherit disadvantage or advantage, not based on physiological differences, but social ones. You basically argue that saying race can be a disadvantage is supporting eugenics, which is far from the truth. \nMany people get frustrated when they feel cheated, but in every class, from dirt poor to filthy rich, non-white individuals face far more challenges in America than white ones. This is a fact. \nFurther, there are little to no government handouts based on race. America has one of the worst social safety nets in the western world, despite the highest GDP per capita in the world. If you are truly concerned about poverty you should look into issues like universal healthcare, changing the way we measure poverty (it is archaic, obsolete and fails many) and wealth inequality (see gini index). Few argue for your so called \"race-based handouts\" unless you're referring to reparations which is not a proposed solution to poverty but a justice initiative. You may be conflating \"handouts\" with affirmative action which aims to address issues created by historical discrimination, racism and segregation in education (and housing among other areas). \nI do not understand the issue with helping a group of people that have far more challenges than others? Slavery was not that long ago. Many older black Americans have grandparents who were slaves, legal discrimination/segregation has only been abolished for 60-70 years. There was still a school in Cleveland, MS segregated until 2016. Redlining was (is?) enforced well after it was banned in 1968. These effects are closer than you think. \nSome quality reading for you to learn why your logic fails: \n\"Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality\" - Oliver & Shapiro \n\"Medical Apartheid\" - Harriet A. Washington\n\"Progress for the Poor\" - Lane Kenworthy\n\"The New Jim Crow\" - Michelle Alexander", ">\n\nI can certainly see your point but why is equity your target and not equality? \nFrom a non-american perspective the answer seems decently simple. Use the money that you would use in handouts to build systems that raise the opportunity people have access to.\nNow only using handout money might not be enough but there are a lot of other places where you can delegate money from. Not the military cuz it secures general global peace(more peaceful now than practically any other period in his history since Pax Romana. \nYou could use the money usually used for foreign aid to help your own citizens. It might sound cynical but the highest priority of any well working nation should be its own people and when a lot of them are struggling then that should take precedence over foreign aid.\nUse all that gathered money to create institutions like NAV( Norwegian system that helps people get jobs and education and they get a monthly allowance that they can live on until they don't need it anymore) \nI'm no politician but surely there are better ways to secure equality for its own citizens.", ">\n\nBecause the US has equality on paper more or less, and yet a lot of people are still struggling. I want something near economic equity because I don't want people to suffer, and we should help those who can't help themselves, my problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.", ">\n\n\nmy problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.\n\nnobody's doing that, you only think they are because you don't want to acknowledge the effect racism has on opportunities for minorities, and keep desperately trying to claim its all purely based on racial backgrounds as if that's the only factor.", ">\n\nUmm wtf. Trevor Noah grew up very poor in apartheid South Africa. If you are trying to come up with some poster child for people raised with a silver spoon in their mouth and never discriminated on based on his race he is not it.", ">\n\nIt’s because you can’t erase bias in humans, and in all of these programs humans are decision makers. When you have group A in control and they administrate a program, the benefits will skew toward group A because of human nature. It happens subconsciously if not consciously.\nSo if we start from the premise that different races, ethnicities and genders have similar abilities sufficient for similar capacity for achievement, and we observe that groups B, C, etc are disproportionately disadvantaged, the only way to actually address that is to purposefully facilitate a change.\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”, Ibram Kendi says (paraphrasing) that because of this, every policy either explicitly combats racism in this way or it implicitly promotes existing racism by not doing so. It’s a good book.\nThe Cletus comment was pretty lame btw. And biased. For all you know that guy’s IQ is higher than yours.", ">\n\n\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”,\n\nFrom the same author who openly criticised interracial adoption. Opinion disregarded.", ">\n\nI believe what he said is that adopting children of other races doesn’t mean you can’t act racist. It was a bad tweet. It doesn’t have anything to do with this argument.", ">\n\nBut certain races also face verifiable additional hardships due to their race.", ">\n\nCertain races are stuck in certain classes due to systemic racism, but now it’s less about the race and more about being stuck in a class.\nSo let’s focus on helping out people based on class (because that has the highest impact on one’s life).\nIn other words, a rich black person should not be receiving more handouts than a poor white person. Let’s focus on class.", ">\n\nThey don't", ">\n\nThey do though. If a black kid has rich parents but for some odd reason they don't wanna pay for his college tuition, the black kid will have access to far more scholarships than a white kid with poor parents who actually NEEDS the scholarship.", ">\n\n… you realize majority of these scholarships still look At financial need? They don’t just look at race. They aren’t giving them to rich black students, they are giving it to poor black students.", ">\n\nNo, treating everyone equally is racist.", ">\n\nHow?", ">\n\nI dont know but a bunch of people here are arguing for just that :D", ">\n\nIt seems so", ">\n\nYou're looking at equity purely in terms of socioeconomic status, as if the only goal of social equity were to make certain groups wealthier. Instead, social equity is intended to build up certain groups to give them the same opportunity as others. Opportunity to pursue happiness however they want, even if it may not necessarily be socioeconomically advantageous (e.g. working in a prestigious research institution studying quantum particles). \nThis brings me to another point, you don't typically need to add equity to something that already has equity. You don't build a nice kitchen in a house that already has a nice kitchen. You build a nice kitchen in a house that's been neglected and needs its value increased. This concept of equity translates to minority groups that have been systematically neglected, or worse systematically torn down. Poor white people may have a rough life, and I fully sympathize with that, but their poverty is not as a result of a centuries-old system that sought to keep them downtrodden. \nCapitalism does play a role in systematically keeping poor people poor, and this applies to any race, gender identity, or sexual orientation. But we need to also be aware that systemic racism contributes an additional burden on black people, which is why they need additional aid from government and institutions to be able to have the same opportunity as a poor white person.", ">\n\n\nBut we need to also be aware that systemic racism contributes an additional burden on black people, which is why they need additional aid from government and institutions to be able to have the same opportunity as a poor white person.\n\nNo, you need to flush out the systemic racism, instead of adding more systemic racism to the system in the hopes it will compensate the other systemic racism." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?", ">\n\nThe difference is that your place of birth or the poverty level of your parents and all the other factors I listed are circumstances surrounding you and your inherent qualities in you like race is.", ">\n\nBut being born into a given race is literally a circumstance of birth conveyed upon you by your parents. What makes race more “inherent” than poverty? And why should we be rendering assistance to things which are merely “circumstantial” as opposed to “inherent”. I’m not sure the distinction is real or important, but to the extent that it is, doesn’t the “inherent” category require more assistance?", ">\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.", ">\n\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \n\nSo you're switching positions? You're saying that we should help based on inherent characteristics but not circumstantial characteristics like poverty, family background, nationality, etc.?\n\nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.\n\nYou've just flipped your whole reasoning. So now you say we should only be helping people with disabilities and not those other categories then?", ">\n\nWe absolutely should help people based on both inherent and circumstantial characteristics that disadvantage them, that was never in contention, the point of the CMV is that skin color is not an inherent disadvantage, to claim it is puts it in the same category as birth defects and mental illnesses, and we shouldn't take it into account when assisting people. \nDo you enjoy purposefully interpreting my every statement in the worst possible light? All this conversation did is reiterate the body of the post, thanks.", ">\n\nThis logic makes no sense. One is not arguing that race is an inherent disadvantage in a physiological manner, but in a social manner. Race is a social construct that is used to group people. In many places, especially America, this social construct has been used to explicitly and implicitly harm these groups throughout history. Thus, one's race is an inherit disadvantage or advantage, not based on physiological differences, but social ones. You basically argue that saying race can be a disadvantage is supporting eugenics, which is far from the truth. \nMany people get frustrated when they feel cheated, but in every class, from dirt poor to filthy rich, non-white individuals face far more challenges in America than white ones. This is a fact. \nFurther, there are little to no government handouts based on race. America has one of the worst social safety nets in the western world, despite the highest GDP per capita in the world. If you are truly concerned about poverty you should look into issues like universal healthcare, changing the way we measure poverty (it is archaic, obsolete and fails many) and wealth inequality (see gini index). Few argue for your so called \"race-based handouts\" unless you're referring to reparations which is not a proposed solution to poverty but a justice initiative. You may be conflating \"handouts\" with affirmative action which aims to address issues created by historical discrimination, racism and segregation in education (and housing among other areas). \nI do not understand the issue with helping a group of people that have far more challenges than others? Slavery was not that long ago. Many older black Americans have grandparents who were slaves, legal discrimination/segregation has only been abolished for 60-70 years. There was still a school in Cleveland, MS segregated until 2016. Redlining was (is?) enforced well after it was banned in 1968. These effects are closer than you think. \nSome quality reading for you to learn why your logic fails: \n\"Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality\" - Oliver & Shapiro \n\"Medical Apartheid\" - Harriet A. Washington\n\"Progress for the Poor\" - Lane Kenworthy\n\"The New Jim Crow\" - Michelle Alexander", ">\n\nI can certainly see your point but why is equity your target and not equality? \nFrom a non-american perspective the answer seems decently simple. Use the money that you would use in handouts to build systems that raise the opportunity people have access to.\nNow only using handout money might not be enough but there are a lot of other places where you can delegate money from. Not the military cuz it secures general global peace(more peaceful now than practically any other period in his history since Pax Romana. \nYou could use the money usually used for foreign aid to help your own citizens. It might sound cynical but the highest priority of any well working nation should be its own people and when a lot of them are struggling then that should take precedence over foreign aid.\nUse all that gathered money to create institutions like NAV( Norwegian system that helps people get jobs and education and they get a monthly allowance that they can live on until they don't need it anymore) \nI'm no politician but surely there are better ways to secure equality for its own citizens.", ">\n\nBecause the US has equality on paper more or less, and yet a lot of people are still struggling. I want something near economic equity because I don't want people to suffer, and we should help those who can't help themselves, my problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.", ">\n\n\nmy problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.\n\nnobody's doing that, you only think they are because you don't want to acknowledge the effect racism has on opportunities for minorities, and keep desperately trying to claim its all purely based on racial backgrounds as if that's the only factor.", ">\n\nUmm wtf. Trevor Noah grew up very poor in apartheid South Africa. If you are trying to come up with some poster child for people raised with a silver spoon in their mouth and never discriminated on based on his race he is not it.", ">\n\nIt’s because you can’t erase bias in humans, and in all of these programs humans are decision makers. When you have group A in control and they administrate a program, the benefits will skew toward group A because of human nature. It happens subconsciously if not consciously.\nSo if we start from the premise that different races, ethnicities and genders have similar abilities sufficient for similar capacity for achievement, and we observe that groups B, C, etc are disproportionately disadvantaged, the only way to actually address that is to purposefully facilitate a change.\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”, Ibram Kendi says (paraphrasing) that because of this, every policy either explicitly combats racism in this way or it implicitly promotes existing racism by not doing so. It’s a good book.\nThe Cletus comment was pretty lame btw. And biased. For all you know that guy’s IQ is higher than yours.", ">\n\n\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”,\n\nFrom the same author who openly criticised interracial adoption. Opinion disregarded.", ">\n\nI believe what he said is that adopting children of other races doesn’t mean you can’t act racist. It was a bad tweet. It doesn’t have anything to do with this argument.", ">\n\nBut certain races also face verifiable additional hardships due to their race.", ">\n\nCertain races are stuck in certain classes due to systemic racism, but now it’s less about the race and more about being stuck in a class.\nSo let’s focus on helping out people based on class (because that has the highest impact on one’s life).\nIn other words, a rich black person should not be receiving more handouts than a poor white person. Let’s focus on class.", ">\n\nThey don't", ">\n\nThey do though. If a black kid has rich parents but for some odd reason they don't wanna pay for his college tuition, the black kid will have access to far more scholarships than a white kid with poor parents who actually NEEDS the scholarship.", ">\n\n… you realize majority of these scholarships still look At financial need? They don’t just look at race. They aren’t giving them to rich black students, they are giving it to poor black students.", ">\n\nNo, treating everyone equally is racist.", ">\n\nHow?", ">\n\nI dont know but a bunch of people here are arguing for just that :D", ">\n\nIt seems so", ">\n\nYou're looking at equity purely in terms of socioeconomic status, as if the only goal of social equity were to make certain groups wealthier. Instead, social equity is intended to build up certain groups to give them the same opportunity as others. Opportunity to pursue happiness however they want, even if it may not necessarily be socioeconomically advantageous (e.g. working in a prestigious research institution studying quantum particles). \nThis brings me to another point, you don't typically need to add equity to something that already has equity. You don't build a nice kitchen in a house that already has a nice kitchen. You build a nice kitchen in a house that's been neglected and needs its value increased. This concept of equity translates to minority groups that have been systematically neglected, or worse systematically torn down. Poor white people may have a rough life, and I fully sympathize with that, but their poverty is not as a result of a centuries-old system that sought to keep them downtrodden. \nCapitalism does play a role in systematically keeping poor people poor, and this applies to any race, gender identity, or sexual orientation. But we need to also be aware that systemic racism contributes an additional burden on black people, which is why they need additional aid from government and institutions to be able to have the same opportunity as a poor white person.", ">\n\n\nBut we need to also be aware that systemic racism contributes an additional burden on black people, which is why they need additional aid from government and institutions to be able to have the same opportunity as a poor white person.\n\nNo, you need to flush out the systemic racism, instead of adding more systemic racism to the system in the hopes it will compensate the other systemic racism.", ">\n\nAre you honestly arguing that leveling the playing field is racist? \nLet's say you have two poor people in a snowstorm. One of them has a coat and one doesn't. You give a coat to the one who doesn't. Does that mean you're actively harming or margnalizing the other person who already has a coat? Of course not. They're both still poor people, but now they both have a coat with which to survive the elements. Neither one was harmed by you handing over the coat. Neither one will suddenly become wealthy by you handing over the coat. All you did is give the one who didn't have a coat an opportunity." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?", ">\n\nThe difference is that your place of birth or the poverty level of your parents and all the other factors I listed are circumstances surrounding you and your inherent qualities in you like race is.", ">\n\nBut being born into a given race is literally a circumstance of birth conveyed upon you by your parents. What makes race more “inherent” than poverty? And why should we be rendering assistance to things which are merely “circumstantial” as opposed to “inherent”. I’m not sure the distinction is real or important, but to the extent that it is, doesn’t the “inherent” category require more assistance?", ">\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.", ">\n\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \n\nSo you're switching positions? You're saying that we should help based on inherent characteristics but not circumstantial characteristics like poverty, family background, nationality, etc.?\n\nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.\n\nYou've just flipped your whole reasoning. So now you say we should only be helping people with disabilities and not those other categories then?", ">\n\nWe absolutely should help people based on both inherent and circumstantial characteristics that disadvantage them, that was never in contention, the point of the CMV is that skin color is not an inherent disadvantage, to claim it is puts it in the same category as birth defects and mental illnesses, and we shouldn't take it into account when assisting people. \nDo you enjoy purposefully interpreting my every statement in the worst possible light? All this conversation did is reiterate the body of the post, thanks.", ">\n\nThis logic makes no sense. One is not arguing that race is an inherent disadvantage in a physiological manner, but in a social manner. Race is a social construct that is used to group people. In many places, especially America, this social construct has been used to explicitly and implicitly harm these groups throughout history. Thus, one's race is an inherit disadvantage or advantage, not based on physiological differences, but social ones. You basically argue that saying race can be a disadvantage is supporting eugenics, which is far from the truth. \nMany people get frustrated when they feel cheated, but in every class, from dirt poor to filthy rich, non-white individuals face far more challenges in America than white ones. This is a fact. \nFurther, there are little to no government handouts based on race. America has one of the worst social safety nets in the western world, despite the highest GDP per capita in the world. If you are truly concerned about poverty you should look into issues like universal healthcare, changing the way we measure poverty (it is archaic, obsolete and fails many) and wealth inequality (see gini index). Few argue for your so called \"race-based handouts\" unless you're referring to reparations which is not a proposed solution to poverty but a justice initiative. You may be conflating \"handouts\" with affirmative action which aims to address issues created by historical discrimination, racism and segregation in education (and housing among other areas). \nI do not understand the issue with helping a group of people that have far more challenges than others? Slavery was not that long ago. Many older black Americans have grandparents who were slaves, legal discrimination/segregation has only been abolished for 60-70 years. There was still a school in Cleveland, MS segregated until 2016. Redlining was (is?) enforced well after it was banned in 1968. These effects are closer than you think. \nSome quality reading for you to learn why your logic fails: \n\"Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality\" - Oliver & Shapiro \n\"Medical Apartheid\" - Harriet A. Washington\n\"Progress for the Poor\" - Lane Kenworthy\n\"The New Jim Crow\" - Michelle Alexander", ">\n\nI can certainly see your point but why is equity your target and not equality? \nFrom a non-american perspective the answer seems decently simple. Use the money that you would use in handouts to build systems that raise the opportunity people have access to.\nNow only using handout money might not be enough but there are a lot of other places where you can delegate money from. Not the military cuz it secures general global peace(more peaceful now than practically any other period in his history since Pax Romana. \nYou could use the money usually used for foreign aid to help your own citizens. It might sound cynical but the highest priority of any well working nation should be its own people and when a lot of them are struggling then that should take precedence over foreign aid.\nUse all that gathered money to create institutions like NAV( Norwegian system that helps people get jobs and education and they get a monthly allowance that they can live on until they don't need it anymore) \nI'm no politician but surely there are better ways to secure equality for its own citizens.", ">\n\nBecause the US has equality on paper more or less, and yet a lot of people are still struggling. I want something near economic equity because I don't want people to suffer, and we should help those who can't help themselves, my problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.", ">\n\n\nmy problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.\n\nnobody's doing that, you only think they are because you don't want to acknowledge the effect racism has on opportunities for minorities, and keep desperately trying to claim its all purely based on racial backgrounds as if that's the only factor.", ">\n\nUmm wtf. Trevor Noah grew up very poor in apartheid South Africa. If you are trying to come up with some poster child for people raised with a silver spoon in their mouth and never discriminated on based on his race he is not it.", ">\n\nIt’s because you can’t erase bias in humans, and in all of these programs humans are decision makers. When you have group A in control and they administrate a program, the benefits will skew toward group A because of human nature. It happens subconsciously if not consciously.\nSo if we start from the premise that different races, ethnicities and genders have similar abilities sufficient for similar capacity for achievement, and we observe that groups B, C, etc are disproportionately disadvantaged, the only way to actually address that is to purposefully facilitate a change.\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”, Ibram Kendi says (paraphrasing) that because of this, every policy either explicitly combats racism in this way or it implicitly promotes existing racism by not doing so. It’s a good book.\nThe Cletus comment was pretty lame btw. And biased. For all you know that guy’s IQ is higher than yours.", ">\n\n\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”,\n\nFrom the same author who openly criticised interracial adoption. Opinion disregarded.", ">\n\nI believe what he said is that adopting children of other races doesn’t mean you can’t act racist. It was a bad tweet. It doesn’t have anything to do with this argument.", ">\n\nBut certain races also face verifiable additional hardships due to their race.", ">\n\nCertain races are stuck in certain classes due to systemic racism, but now it’s less about the race and more about being stuck in a class.\nSo let’s focus on helping out people based on class (because that has the highest impact on one’s life).\nIn other words, a rich black person should not be receiving more handouts than a poor white person. Let’s focus on class.", ">\n\nThey don't", ">\n\nThey do though. If a black kid has rich parents but for some odd reason they don't wanna pay for his college tuition, the black kid will have access to far more scholarships than a white kid with poor parents who actually NEEDS the scholarship.", ">\n\n… you realize majority of these scholarships still look At financial need? They don’t just look at race. They aren’t giving them to rich black students, they are giving it to poor black students.", ">\n\nNo, treating everyone equally is racist.", ">\n\nHow?", ">\n\nI dont know but a bunch of people here are arguing for just that :D", ">\n\nIt seems so", ">\n\nYou're looking at equity purely in terms of socioeconomic status, as if the only goal of social equity were to make certain groups wealthier. Instead, social equity is intended to build up certain groups to give them the same opportunity as others. Opportunity to pursue happiness however they want, even if it may not necessarily be socioeconomically advantageous (e.g. working in a prestigious research institution studying quantum particles). \nThis brings me to another point, you don't typically need to add equity to something that already has equity. You don't build a nice kitchen in a house that already has a nice kitchen. You build a nice kitchen in a house that's been neglected and needs its value increased. This concept of equity translates to minority groups that have been systematically neglected, or worse systematically torn down. Poor white people may have a rough life, and I fully sympathize with that, but their poverty is not as a result of a centuries-old system that sought to keep them downtrodden. \nCapitalism does play a role in systematically keeping poor people poor, and this applies to any race, gender identity, or sexual orientation. But we need to also be aware that systemic racism contributes an additional burden on black people, which is why they need additional aid from government and institutions to be able to have the same opportunity as a poor white person.", ">\n\n\nBut we need to also be aware that systemic racism contributes an additional burden on black people, which is why they need additional aid from government and institutions to be able to have the same opportunity as a poor white person.\n\nNo, you need to flush out the systemic racism, instead of adding more systemic racism to the system in the hopes it will compensate the other systemic racism.", ">\n\nAre you honestly arguing that leveling the playing field is racist? \nLet's say you have two poor people in a snowstorm. One of them has a coat and one doesn't. You give a coat to the one who doesn't. Does that mean you're actively harming or margnalizing the other person who already has a coat? Of course not. They're both still poor people, but now they both have a coat with which to survive the elements. Neither one was harmed by you handing over the coat. Neither one will suddenly become wealthy by you handing over the coat. All you did is give the one who didn't have a coat an opportunity.", ">\n\nOkay what would you do if the government started a program to relief proverty and 99% of the recipients were white. Even in centers that were stationed in neighborhoods with a black, Hispanic, Asian, Indian, etc population?" ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?", ">\n\nThe difference is that your place of birth or the poverty level of your parents and all the other factors I listed are circumstances surrounding you and your inherent qualities in you like race is.", ">\n\nBut being born into a given race is literally a circumstance of birth conveyed upon you by your parents. What makes race more “inherent” than poverty? And why should we be rendering assistance to things which are merely “circumstantial” as opposed to “inherent”. I’m not sure the distinction is real or important, but to the extent that it is, doesn’t the “inherent” category require more assistance?", ">\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.", ">\n\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \n\nSo you're switching positions? You're saying that we should help based on inherent characteristics but not circumstantial characteristics like poverty, family background, nationality, etc.?\n\nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.\n\nYou've just flipped your whole reasoning. So now you say we should only be helping people with disabilities and not those other categories then?", ">\n\nWe absolutely should help people based on both inherent and circumstantial characteristics that disadvantage them, that was never in contention, the point of the CMV is that skin color is not an inherent disadvantage, to claim it is puts it in the same category as birth defects and mental illnesses, and we shouldn't take it into account when assisting people. \nDo you enjoy purposefully interpreting my every statement in the worst possible light? All this conversation did is reiterate the body of the post, thanks.", ">\n\nThis logic makes no sense. One is not arguing that race is an inherent disadvantage in a physiological manner, but in a social manner. Race is a social construct that is used to group people. In many places, especially America, this social construct has been used to explicitly and implicitly harm these groups throughout history. Thus, one's race is an inherit disadvantage or advantage, not based on physiological differences, but social ones. You basically argue that saying race can be a disadvantage is supporting eugenics, which is far from the truth. \nMany people get frustrated when they feel cheated, but in every class, from dirt poor to filthy rich, non-white individuals face far more challenges in America than white ones. This is a fact. \nFurther, there are little to no government handouts based on race. America has one of the worst social safety nets in the western world, despite the highest GDP per capita in the world. If you are truly concerned about poverty you should look into issues like universal healthcare, changing the way we measure poverty (it is archaic, obsolete and fails many) and wealth inequality (see gini index). Few argue for your so called \"race-based handouts\" unless you're referring to reparations which is not a proposed solution to poverty but a justice initiative. You may be conflating \"handouts\" with affirmative action which aims to address issues created by historical discrimination, racism and segregation in education (and housing among other areas). \nI do not understand the issue with helping a group of people that have far more challenges than others? Slavery was not that long ago. Many older black Americans have grandparents who were slaves, legal discrimination/segregation has only been abolished for 60-70 years. There was still a school in Cleveland, MS segregated until 2016. Redlining was (is?) enforced well after it was banned in 1968. These effects are closer than you think. \nSome quality reading for you to learn why your logic fails: \n\"Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality\" - Oliver & Shapiro \n\"Medical Apartheid\" - Harriet A. Washington\n\"Progress for the Poor\" - Lane Kenworthy\n\"The New Jim Crow\" - Michelle Alexander", ">\n\nI can certainly see your point but why is equity your target and not equality? \nFrom a non-american perspective the answer seems decently simple. Use the money that you would use in handouts to build systems that raise the opportunity people have access to.\nNow only using handout money might not be enough but there are a lot of other places where you can delegate money from. Not the military cuz it secures general global peace(more peaceful now than practically any other period in his history since Pax Romana. \nYou could use the money usually used for foreign aid to help your own citizens. It might sound cynical but the highest priority of any well working nation should be its own people and when a lot of them are struggling then that should take precedence over foreign aid.\nUse all that gathered money to create institutions like NAV( Norwegian system that helps people get jobs and education and they get a monthly allowance that they can live on until they don't need it anymore) \nI'm no politician but surely there are better ways to secure equality for its own citizens.", ">\n\nBecause the US has equality on paper more or less, and yet a lot of people are still struggling. I want something near economic equity because I don't want people to suffer, and we should help those who can't help themselves, my problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.", ">\n\n\nmy problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.\n\nnobody's doing that, you only think they are because you don't want to acknowledge the effect racism has on opportunities for minorities, and keep desperately trying to claim its all purely based on racial backgrounds as if that's the only factor.", ">\n\nUmm wtf. Trevor Noah grew up very poor in apartheid South Africa. If you are trying to come up with some poster child for people raised with a silver spoon in their mouth and never discriminated on based on his race he is not it.", ">\n\nIt’s because you can’t erase bias in humans, and in all of these programs humans are decision makers. When you have group A in control and they administrate a program, the benefits will skew toward group A because of human nature. It happens subconsciously if not consciously.\nSo if we start from the premise that different races, ethnicities and genders have similar abilities sufficient for similar capacity for achievement, and we observe that groups B, C, etc are disproportionately disadvantaged, the only way to actually address that is to purposefully facilitate a change.\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”, Ibram Kendi says (paraphrasing) that because of this, every policy either explicitly combats racism in this way or it implicitly promotes existing racism by not doing so. It’s a good book.\nThe Cletus comment was pretty lame btw. And biased. For all you know that guy’s IQ is higher than yours.", ">\n\n\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”,\n\nFrom the same author who openly criticised interracial adoption. Opinion disregarded.", ">\n\nI believe what he said is that adopting children of other races doesn’t mean you can’t act racist. It was a bad tweet. It doesn’t have anything to do with this argument.", ">\n\nBut certain races also face verifiable additional hardships due to their race.", ">\n\nCertain races are stuck in certain classes due to systemic racism, but now it’s less about the race and more about being stuck in a class.\nSo let’s focus on helping out people based on class (because that has the highest impact on one’s life).\nIn other words, a rich black person should not be receiving more handouts than a poor white person. Let’s focus on class.", ">\n\nThey don't", ">\n\nThey do though. If a black kid has rich parents but for some odd reason they don't wanna pay for his college tuition, the black kid will have access to far more scholarships than a white kid with poor parents who actually NEEDS the scholarship.", ">\n\n… you realize majority of these scholarships still look At financial need? They don’t just look at race. They aren’t giving them to rich black students, they are giving it to poor black students.", ">\n\nNo, treating everyone equally is racist.", ">\n\nHow?", ">\n\nI dont know but a bunch of people here are arguing for just that :D", ">\n\nIt seems so", ">\n\nYou're looking at equity purely in terms of socioeconomic status, as if the only goal of social equity were to make certain groups wealthier. Instead, social equity is intended to build up certain groups to give them the same opportunity as others. Opportunity to pursue happiness however they want, even if it may not necessarily be socioeconomically advantageous (e.g. working in a prestigious research institution studying quantum particles). \nThis brings me to another point, you don't typically need to add equity to something that already has equity. You don't build a nice kitchen in a house that already has a nice kitchen. You build a nice kitchen in a house that's been neglected and needs its value increased. This concept of equity translates to minority groups that have been systematically neglected, or worse systematically torn down. Poor white people may have a rough life, and I fully sympathize with that, but their poverty is not as a result of a centuries-old system that sought to keep them downtrodden. \nCapitalism does play a role in systematically keeping poor people poor, and this applies to any race, gender identity, or sexual orientation. But we need to also be aware that systemic racism contributes an additional burden on black people, which is why they need additional aid from government and institutions to be able to have the same opportunity as a poor white person.", ">\n\n\nBut we need to also be aware that systemic racism contributes an additional burden on black people, which is why they need additional aid from government and institutions to be able to have the same opportunity as a poor white person.\n\nNo, you need to flush out the systemic racism, instead of adding more systemic racism to the system in the hopes it will compensate the other systemic racism.", ">\n\nAre you honestly arguing that leveling the playing field is racist? \nLet's say you have two poor people in a snowstorm. One of them has a coat and one doesn't. You give a coat to the one who doesn't. Does that mean you're actively harming or margnalizing the other person who already has a coat? Of course not. They're both still poor people, but now they both have a coat with which to survive the elements. Neither one was harmed by you handing over the coat. Neither one will suddenly become wealthy by you handing over the coat. All you did is give the one who didn't have a coat an opportunity.", ">\n\nOkay what would you do if the government started a program to relief proverty and 99% of the recipients were white. Even in centers that were stationed in neighborhoods with a black, Hispanic, Asian, Indian, etc population?", ">\n\nHalt it, investigate everyone responsible, hand out some prison time, do it better next time." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?", ">\n\nThe difference is that your place of birth or the poverty level of your parents and all the other factors I listed are circumstances surrounding you and your inherent qualities in you like race is.", ">\n\nBut being born into a given race is literally a circumstance of birth conveyed upon you by your parents. What makes race more “inherent” than poverty? And why should we be rendering assistance to things which are merely “circumstantial” as opposed to “inherent”. I’m not sure the distinction is real or important, but to the extent that it is, doesn’t the “inherent” category require more assistance?", ">\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.", ">\n\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \n\nSo you're switching positions? You're saying that we should help based on inherent characteristics but not circumstantial characteristics like poverty, family background, nationality, etc.?\n\nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.\n\nYou've just flipped your whole reasoning. So now you say we should only be helping people with disabilities and not those other categories then?", ">\n\nWe absolutely should help people based on both inherent and circumstantial characteristics that disadvantage them, that was never in contention, the point of the CMV is that skin color is not an inherent disadvantage, to claim it is puts it in the same category as birth defects and mental illnesses, and we shouldn't take it into account when assisting people. \nDo you enjoy purposefully interpreting my every statement in the worst possible light? All this conversation did is reiterate the body of the post, thanks.", ">\n\nThis logic makes no sense. One is not arguing that race is an inherent disadvantage in a physiological manner, but in a social manner. Race is a social construct that is used to group people. In many places, especially America, this social construct has been used to explicitly and implicitly harm these groups throughout history. Thus, one's race is an inherit disadvantage or advantage, not based on physiological differences, but social ones. You basically argue that saying race can be a disadvantage is supporting eugenics, which is far from the truth. \nMany people get frustrated when they feel cheated, but in every class, from dirt poor to filthy rich, non-white individuals face far more challenges in America than white ones. This is a fact. \nFurther, there are little to no government handouts based on race. America has one of the worst social safety nets in the western world, despite the highest GDP per capita in the world. If you are truly concerned about poverty you should look into issues like universal healthcare, changing the way we measure poverty (it is archaic, obsolete and fails many) and wealth inequality (see gini index). Few argue for your so called \"race-based handouts\" unless you're referring to reparations which is not a proposed solution to poverty but a justice initiative. You may be conflating \"handouts\" with affirmative action which aims to address issues created by historical discrimination, racism and segregation in education (and housing among other areas). \nI do not understand the issue with helping a group of people that have far more challenges than others? Slavery was not that long ago. Many older black Americans have grandparents who were slaves, legal discrimination/segregation has only been abolished for 60-70 years. There was still a school in Cleveland, MS segregated until 2016. Redlining was (is?) enforced well after it was banned in 1968. These effects are closer than you think. \nSome quality reading for you to learn why your logic fails: \n\"Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality\" - Oliver & Shapiro \n\"Medical Apartheid\" - Harriet A. Washington\n\"Progress for the Poor\" - Lane Kenworthy\n\"The New Jim Crow\" - Michelle Alexander", ">\n\nI can certainly see your point but why is equity your target and not equality? \nFrom a non-american perspective the answer seems decently simple. Use the money that you would use in handouts to build systems that raise the opportunity people have access to.\nNow only using handout money might not be enough but there are a lot of other places where you can delegate money from. Not the military cuz it secures general global peace(more peaceful now than practically any other period in his history since Pax Romana. \nYou could use the money usually used for foreign aid to help your own citizens. It might sound cynical but the highest priority of any well working nation should be its own people and when a lot of them are struggling then that should take precedence over foreign aid.\nUse all that gathered money to create institutions like NAV( Norwegian system that helps people get jobs and education and they get a monthly allowance that they can live on until they don't need it anymore) \nI'm no politician but surely there are better ways to secure equality for its own citizens.", ">\n\nBecause the US has equality on paper more or less, and yet a lot of people are still struggling. I want something near economic equity because I don't want people to suffer, and we should help those who can't help themselves, my problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.", ">\n\n\nmy problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.\n\nnobody's doing that, you only think they are because you don't want to acknowledge the effect racism has on opportunities for minorities, and keep desperately trying to claim its all purely based on racial backgrounds as if that's the only factor.", ">\n\nUmm wtf. Trevor Noah grew up very poor in apartheid South Africa. If you are trying to come up with some poster child for people raised with a silver spoon in their mouth and never discriminated on based on his race he is not it.", ">\n\nIt’s because you can’t erase bias in humans, and in all of these programs humans are decision makers. When you have group A in control and they administrate a program, the benefits will skew toward group A because of human nature. It happens subconsciously if not consciously.\nSo if we start from the premise that different races, ethnicities and genders have similar abilities sufficient for similar capacity for achievement, and we observe that groups B, C, etc are disproportionately disadvantaged, the only way to actually address that is to purposefully facilitate a change.\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”, Ibram Kendi says (paraphrasing) that because of this, every policy either explicitly combats racism in this way or it implicitly promotes existing racism by not doing so. It’s a good book.\nThe Cletus comment was pretty lame btw. And biased. For all you know that guy’s IQ is higher than yours.", ">\n\n\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”,\n\nFrom the same author who openly criticised interracial adoption. Opinion disregarded.", ">\n\nI believe what he said is that adopting children of other races doesn’t mean you can’t act racist. It was a bad tweet. It doesn’t have anything to do with this argument.", ">\n\nBut certain races also face verifiable additional hardships due to their race.", ">\n\nCertain races are stuck in certain classes due to systemic racism, but now it’s less about the race and more about being stuck in a class.\nSo let’s focus on helping out people based on class (because that has the highest impact on one’s life).\nIn other words, a rich black person should not be receiving more handouts than a poor white person. Let’s focus on class.", ">\n\nThey don't", ">\n\nThey do though. If a black kid has rich parents but for some odd reason they don't wanna pay for his college tuition, the black kid will have access to far more scholarships than a white kid with poor parents who actually NEEDS the scholarship.", ">\n\n… you realize majority of these scholarships still look At financial need? They don’t just look at race. They aren’t giving them to rich black students, they are giving it to poor black students.", ">\n\nNo, treating everyone equally is racist.", ">\n\nHow?", ">\n\nI dont know but a bunch of people here are arguing for just that :D", ">\n\nIt seems so", ">\n\nYou're looking at equity purely in terms of socioeconomic status, as if the only goal of social equity were to make certain groups wealthier. Instead, social equity is intended to build up certain groups to give them the same opportunity as others. Opportunity to pursue happiness however they want, even if it may not necessarily be socioeconomically advantageous (e.g. working in a prestigious research institution studying quantum particles). \nThis brings me to another point, you don't typically need to add equity to something that already has equity. You don't build a nice kitchen in a house that already has a nice kitchen. You build a nice kitchen in a house that's been neglected and needs its value increased. This concept of equity translates to minority groups that have been systematically neglected, or worse systematically torn down. Poor white people may have a rough life, and I fully sympathize with that, but their poverty is not as a result of a centuries-old system that sought to keep them downtrodden. \nCapitalism does play a role in systematically keeping poor people poor, and this applies to any race, gender identity, or sexual orientation. But we need to also be aware that systemic racism contributes an additional burden on black people, which is why they need additional aid from government and institutions to be able to have the same opportunity as a poor white person.", ">\n\n\nBut we need to also be aware that systemic racism contributes an additional burden on black people, which is why they need additional aid from government and institutions to be able to have the same opportunity as a poor white person.\n\nNo, you need to flush out the systemic racism, instead of adding more systemic racism to the system in the hopes it will compensate the other systemic racism.", ">\n\nAre you honestly arguing that leveling the playing field is racist? \nLet's say you have two poor people in a snowstorm. One of them has a coat and one doesn't. You give a coat to the one who doesn't. Does that mean you're actively harming or margnalizing the other person who already has a coat? Of course not. They're both still poor people, but now they both have a coat with which to survive the elements. Neither one was harmed by you handing over the coat. Neither one will suddenly become wealthy by you handing over the coat. All you did is give the one who didn't have a coat an opportunity.", ">\n\nOkay what would you do if the government started a program to relief proverty and 99% of the recipients were white. Even in centers that were stationed in neighborhoods with a black, Hispanic, Asian, Indian, etc population?", ">\n\nHalt it, investigate everyone responsible, hand out some prison time, do it better next time.", ">\n\nThen would you introduce racial guidelines of would you be willing to let it happen again?\nHistorically that is what's has happen. Like the community reinvestment act.\nThe government aims for a racially neutral program to lift the economy, the program is disproportionately benefits white people even in primarily black areas and no one cares about it until years after the program is discontinued.\nNot saying that programs meant exclusively for black people always work out. Those tend to start strong until an administrative change and then those in charge steal the money put in because the new administrative actively wants it to fail and no one is really going to look into it because it's just happening to black people. Like what happened to Haiti relief or Nixon and most of the desegregation programs." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?", ">\n\nThe difference is that your place of birth or the poverty level of your parents and all the other factors I listed are circumstances surrounding you and your inherent qualities in you like race is.", ">\n\nBut being born into a given race is literally a circumstance of birth conveyed upon you by your parents. What makes race more “inherent” than poverty? And why should we be rendering assistance to things which are merely “circumstantial” as opposed to “inherent”. I’m not sure the distinction is real or important, but to the extent that it is, doesn’t the “inherent” category require more assistance?", ">\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.", ">\n\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \n\nSo you're switching positions? You're saying that we should help based on inherent characteristics but not circumstantial characteristics like poverty, family background, nationality, etc.?\n\nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.\n\nYou've just flipped your whole reasoning. So now you say we should only be helping people with disabilities and not those other categories then?", ">\n\nWe absolutely should help people based on both inherent and circumstantial characteristics that disadvantage them, that was never in contention, the point of the CMV is that skin color is not an inherent disadvantage, to claim it is puts it in the same category as birth defects and mental illnesses, and we shouldn't take it into account when assisting people. \nDo you enjoy purposefully interpreting my every statement in the worst possible light? All this conversation did is reiterate the body of the post, thanks.", ">\n\nThis logic makes no sense. One is not arguing that race is an inherent disadvantage in a physiological manner, but in a social manner. Race is a social construct that is used to group people. In many places, especially America, this social construct has been used to explicitly and implicitly harm these groups throughout history. Thus, one's race is an inherit disadvantage or advantage, not based on physiological differences, but social ones. You basically argue that saying race can be a disadvantage is supporting eugenics, which is far from the truth. \nMany people get frustrated when they feel cheated, but in every class, from dirt poor to filthy rich, non-white individuals face far more challenges in America than white ones. This is a fact. \nFurther, there are little to no government handouts based on race. America has one of the worst social safety nets in the western world, despite the highest GDP per capita in the world. If you are truly concerned about poverty you should look into issues like universal healthcare, changing the way we measure poverty (it is archaic, obsolete and fails many) and wealth inequality (see gini index). Few argue for your so called \"race-based handouts\" unless you're referring to reparations which is not a proposed solution to poverty but a justice initiative. You may be conflating \"handouts\" with affirmative action which aims to address issues created by historical discrimination, racism and segregation in education (and housing among other areas). \nI do not understand the issue with helping a group of people that have far more challenges than others? Slavery was not that long ago. Many older black Americans have grandparents who were slaves, legal discrimination/segregation has only been abolished for 60-70 years. There was still a school in Cleveland, MS segregated until 2016. Redlining was (is?) enforced well after it was banned in 1968. These effects are closer than you think. \nSome quality reading for you to learn why your logic fails: \n\"Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality\" - Oliver & Shapiro \n\"Medical Apartheid\" - Harriet A. Washington\n\"Progress for the Poor\" - Lane Kenworthy\n\"The New Jim Crow\" - Michelle Alexander", ">\n\nI can certainly see your point but why is equity your target and not equality? \nFrom a non-american perspective the answer seems decently simple. Use the money that you would use in handouts to build systems that raise the opportunity people have access to.\nNow only using handout money might not be enough but there are a lot of other places where you can delegate money from. Not the military cuz it secures general global peace(more peaceful now than practically any other period in his history since Pax Romana. \nYou could use the money usually used for foreign aid to help your own citizens. It might sound cynical but the highest priority of any well working nation should be its own people and when a lot of them are struggling then that should take precedence over foreign aid.\nUse all that gathered money to create institutions like NAV( Norwegian system that helps people get jobs and education and they get a monthly allowance that they can live on until they don't need it anymore) \nI'm no politician but surely there are better ways to secure equality for its own citizens.", ">\n\nBecause the US has equality on paper more or less, and yet a lot of people are still struggling. I want something near economic equity because I don't want people to suffer, and we should help those who can't help themselves, my problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.", ">\n\n\nmy problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.\n\nnobody's doing that, you only think they are because you don't want to acknowledge the effect racism has on opportunities for minorities, and keep desperately trying to claim its all purely based on racial backgrounds as if that's the only factor.", ">\n\nUmm wtf. Trevor Noah grew up very poor in apartheid South Africa. If you are trying to come up with some poster child for people raised with a silver spoon in their mouth and never discriminated on based on his race he is not it.", ">\n\nIt’s because you can’t erase bias in humans, and in all of these programs humans are decision makers. When you have group A in control and they administrate a program, the benefits will skew toward group A because of human nature. It happens subconsciously if not consciously.\nSo if we start from the premise that different races, ethnicities and genders have similar abilities sufficient for similar capacity for achievement, and we observe that groups B, C, etc are disproportionately disadvantaged, the only way to actually address that is to purposefully facilitate a change.\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”, Ibram Kendi says (paraphrasing) that because of this, every policy either explicitly combats racism in this way or it implicitly promotes existing racism by not doing so. It’s a good book.\nThe Cletus comment was pretty lame btw. And biased. For all you know that guy’s IQ is higher than yours.", ">\n\n\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”,\n\nFrom the same author who openly criticised interracial adoption. Opinion disregarded.", ">\n\nI believe what he said is that adopting children of other races doesn’t mean you can’t act racist. It was a bad tweet. It doesn’t have anything to do with this argument.", ">\n\nBut certain races also face verifiable additional hardships due to their race.", ">\n\nCertain races are stuck in certain classes due to systemic racism, but now it’s less about the race and more about being stuck in a class.\nSo let’s focus on helping out people based on class (because that has the highest impact on one’s life).\nIn other words, a rich black person should not be receiving more handouts than a poor white person. Let’s focus on class.", ">\n\nThey don't", ">\n\nThey do though. If a black kid has rich parents but for some odd reason they don't wanna pay for his college tuition, the black kid will have access to far more scholarships than a white kid with poor parents who actually NEEDS the scholarship.", ">\n\n… you realize majority of these scholarships still look At financial need? They don’t just look at race. They aren’t giving them to rich black students, they are giving it to poor black students.", ">\n\nNo, treating everyone equally is racist.", ">\n\nHow?", ">\n\nI dont know but a bunch of people here are arguing for just that :D", ">\n\nIt seems so", ">\n\nYou're looking at equity purely in terms of socioeconomic status, as if the only goal of social equity were to make certain groups wealthier. Instead, social equity is intended to build up certain groups to give them the same opportunity as others. Opportunity to pursue happiness however they want, even if it may not necessarily be socioeconomically advantageous (e.g. working in a prestigious research institution studying quantum particles). \nThis brings me to another point, you don't typically need to add equity to something that already has equity. You don't build a nice kitchen in a house that already has a nice kitchen. You build a nice kitchen in a house that's been neglected and needs its value increased. This concept of equity translates to minority groups that have been systematically neglected, or worse systematically torn down. Poor white people may have a rough life, and I fully sympathize with that, but their poverty is not as a result of a centuries-old system that sought to keep them downtrodden. \nCapitalism does play a role in systematically keeping poor people poor, and this applies to any race, gender identity, or sexual orientation. But we need to also be aware that systemic racism contributes an additional burden on black people, which is why they need additional aid from government and institutions to be able to have the same opportunity as a poor white person.", ">\n\n\nBut we need to also be aware that systemic racism contributes an additional burden on black people, which is why they need additional aid from government and institutions to be able to have the same opportunity as a poor white person.\n\nNo, you need to flush out the systemic racism, instead of adding more systemic racism to the system in the hopes it will compensate the other systemic racism.", ">\n\nAre you honestly arguing that leveling the playing field is racist? \nLet's say you have two poor people in a snowstorm. One of them has a coat and one doesn't. You give a coat to the one who doesn't. Does that mean you're actively harming or margnalizing the other person who already has a coat? Of course not. They're both still poor people, but now they both have a coat with which to survive the elements. Neither one was harmed by you handing over the coat. Neither one will suddenly become wealthy by you handing over the coat. All you did is give the one who didn't have a coat an opportunity.", ">\n\nOkay what would you do if the government started a program to relief proverty and 99% of the recipients were white. Even in centers that were stationed in neighborhoods with a black, Hispanic, Asian, Indian, etc population?", ">\n\nHalt it, investigate everyone responsible, hand out some prison time, do it better next time.", ">\n\nThen would you introduce racial guidelines of would you be willing to let it happen again?\nHistorically that is what's has happen. Like the community reinvestment act.\nThe government aims for a racially neutral program to lift the economy, the program is disproportionately benefits white people even in primarily black areas and no one cares about it until years after the program is discontinued.\nNot saying that programs meant exclusively for black people always work out. Those tend to start strong until an administrative change and then those in charge steal the money put in because the new administrative actively wants it to fail and no one is really going to look into it because it's just happening to black people. Like what happened to Haiti relief or Nixon and most of the desegregation programs.", ">\n\nIt is not handed out by race don't believe the republican propaganda man." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?", ">\n\nThe difference is that your place of birth or the poverty level of your parents and all the other factors I listed are circumstances surrounding you and your inherent qualities in you like race is.", ">\n\nBut being born into a given race is literally a circumstance of birth conveyed upon you by your parents. What makes race more “inherent” than poverty? And why should we be rendering assistance to things which are merely “circumstantial” as opposed to “inherent”. I’m not sure the distinction is real or important, but to the extent that it is, doesn’t the “inherent” category require more assistance?", ">\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.", ">\n\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \n\nSo you're switching positions? You're saying that we should help based on inherent characteristics but not circumstantial characteristics like poverty, family background, nationality, etc.?\n\nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.\n\nYou've just flipped your whole reasoning. So now you say we should only be helping people with disabilities and not those other categories then?", ">\n\nWe absolutely should help people based on both inherent and circumstantial characteristics that disadvantage them, that was never in contention, the point of the CMV is that skin color is not an inherent disadvantage, to claim it is puts it in the same category as birth defects and mental illnesses, and we shouldn't take it into account when assisting people. \nDo you enjoy purposefully interpreting my every statement in the worst possible light? All this conversation did is reiterate the body of the post, thanks.", ">\n\nThis logic makes no sense. One is not arguing that race is an inherent disadvantage in a physiological manner, but in a social manner. Race is a social construct that is used to group people. In many places, especially America, this social construct has been used to explicitly and implicitly harm these groups throughout history. Thus, one's race is an inherit disadvantage or advantage, not based on physiological differences, but social ones. You basically argue that saying race can be a disadvantage is supporting eugenics, which is far from the truth. \nMany people get frustrated when they feel cheated, but in every class, from dirt poor to filthy rich, non-white individuals face far more challenges in America than white ones. This is a fact. \nFurther, there are little to no government handouts based on race. America has one of the worst social safety nets in the western world, despite the highest GDP per capita in the world. If you are truly concerned about poverty you should look into issues like universal healthcare, changing the way we measure poverty (it is archaic, obsolete and fails many) and wealth inequality (see gini index). Few argue for your so called \"race-based handouts\" unless you're referring to reparations which is not a proposed solution to poverty but a justice initiative. You may be conflating \"handouts\" with affirmative action which aims to address issues created by historical discrimination, racism and segregation in education (and housing among other areas). \nI do not understand the issue with helping a group of people that have far more challenges than others? Slavery was not that long ago. Many older black Americans have grandparents who were slaves, legal discrimination/segregation has only been abolished for 60-70 years. There was still a school in Cleveland, MS segregated until 2016. Redlining was (is?) enforced well after it was banned in 1968. These effects are closer than you think. \nSome quality reading for you to learn why your logic fails: \n\"Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality\" - Oliver & Shapiro \n\"Medical Apartheid\" - Harriet A. Washington\n\"Progress for the Poor\" - Lane Kenworthy\n\"The New Jim Crow\" - Michelle Alexander", ">\n\nI can certainly see your point but why is equity your target and not equality? \nFrom a non-american perspective the answer seems decently simple. Use the money that you would use in handouts to build systems that raise the opportunity people have access to.\nNow only using handout money might not be enough but there are a lot of other places where you can delegate money from. Not the military cuz it secures general global peace(more peaceful now than practically any other period in his history since Pax Romana. \nYou could use the money usually used for foreign aid to help your own citizens. It might sound cynical but the highest priority of any well working nation should be its own people and when a lot of them are struggling then that should take precedence over foreign aid.\nUse all that gathered money to create institutions like NAV( Norwegian system that helps people get jobs and education and they get a monthly allowance that they can live on until they don't need it anymore) \nI'm no politician but surely there are better ways to secure equality for its own citizens.", ">\n\nBecause the US has equality on paper more or less, and yet a lot of people are still struggling. I want something near economic equity because I don't want people to suffer, and we should help those who can't help themselves, my problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.", ">\n\n\nmy problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.\n\nnobody's doing that, you only think they are because you don't want to acknowledge the effect racism has on opportunities for minorities, and keep desperately trying to claim its all purely based on racial backgrounds as if that's the only factor.", ">\n\nUmm wtf. Trevor Noah grew up very poor in apartheid South Africa. If you are trying to come up with some poster child for people raised with a silver spoon in their mouth and never discriminated on based on his race he is not it.", ">\n\nIt’s because you can’t erase bias in humans, and in all of these programs humans are decision makers. When you have group A in control and they administrate a program, the benefits will skew toward group A because of human nature. It happens subconsciously if not consciously.\nSo if we start from the premise that different races, ethnicities and genders have similar abilities sufficient for similar capacity for achievement, and we observe that groups B, C, etc are disproportionately disadvantaged, the only way to actually address that is to purposefully facilitate a change.\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”, Ibram Kendi says (paraphrasing) that because of this, every policy either explicitly combats racism in this way or it implicitly promotes existing racism by not doing so. It’s a good book.\nThe Cletus comment was pretty lame btw. And biased. For all you know that guy’s IQ is higher than yours.", ">\n\n\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”,\n\nFrom the same author who openly criticised interracial adoption. Opinion disregarded.", ">\n\nI believe what he said is that adopting children of other races doesn’t mean you can’t act racist. It was a bad tweet. It doesn’t have anything to do with this argument.", ">\n\nBut certain races also face verifiable additional hardships due to their race.", ">\n\nCertain races are stuck in certain classes due to systemic racism, but now it’s less about the race and more about being stuck in a class.\nSo let’s focus on helping out people based on class (because that has the highest impact on one’s life).\nIn other words, a rich black person should not be receiving more handouts than a poor white person. Let’s focus on class.", ">\n\nThey don't", ">\n\nThey do though. If a black kid has rich parents but for some odd reason they don't wanna pay for his college tuition, the black kid will have access to far more scholarships than a white kid with poor parents who actually NEEDS the scholarship.", ">\n\n… you realize majority of these scholarships still look At financial need? They don’t just look at race. They aren’t giving them to rich black students, they are giving it to poor black students.", ">\n\nNo, treating everyone equally is racist.", ">\n\nHow?", ">\n\nI dont know but a bunch of people here are arguing for just that :D", ">\n\nIt seems so", ">\n\nYou're looking at equity purely in terms of socioeconomic status, as if the only goal of social equity were to make certain groups wealthier. Instead, social equity is intended to build up certain groups to give them the same opportunity as others. Opportunity to pursue happiness however they want, even if it may not necessarily be socioeconomically advantageous (e.g. working in a prestigious research institution studying quantum particles). \nThis brings me to another point, you don't typically need to add equity to something that already has equity. You don't build a nice kitchen in a house that already has a nice kitchen. You build a nice kitchen in a house that's been neglected and needs its value increased. This concept of equity translates to minority groups that have been systematically neglected, or worse systematically torn down. Poor white people may have a rough life, and I fully sympathize with that, but their poverty is not as a result of a centuries-old system that sought to keep them downtrodden. \nCapitalism does play a role in systematically keeping poor people poor, and this applies to any race, gender identity, or sexual orientation. But we need to also be aware that systemic racism contributes an additional burden on black people, which is why they need additional aid from government and institutions to be able to have the same opportunity as a poor white person.", ">\n\n\nBut we need to also be aware that systemic racism contributes an additional burden on black people, which is why they need additional aid from government and institutions to be able to have the same opportunity as a poor white person.\n\nNo, you need to flush out the systemic racism, instead of adding more systemic racism to the system in the hopes it will compensate the other systemic racism.", ">\n\nAre you honestly arguing that leveling the playing field is racist? \nLet's say you have two poor people in a snowstorm. One of them has a coat and one doesn't. You give a coat to the one who doesn't. Does that mean you're actively harming or margnalizing the other person who already has a coat? Of course not. They're both still poor people, but now they both have a coat with which to survive the elements. Neither one was harmed by you handing over the coat. Neither one will suddenly become wealthy by you handing over the coat. All you did is give the one who didn't have a coat an opportunity.", ">\n\nOkay what would you do if the government started a program to relief proverty and 99% of the recipients were white. Even in centers that were stationed in neighborhoods with a black, Hispanic, Asian, Indian, etc population?", ">\n\nHalt it, investigate everyone responsible, hand out some prison time, do it better next time.", ">\n\nThen would you introduce racial guidelines of would you be willing to let it happen again?\nHistorically that is what's has happen. Like the community reinvestment act.\nThe government aims for a racially neutral program to lift the economy, the program is disproportionately benefits white people even in primarily black areas and no one cares about it until years after the program is discontinued.\nNot saying that programs meant exclusively for black people always work out. Those tend to start strong until an administrative change and then those in charge steal the money put in because the new administrative actively wants it to fail and no one is really going to look into it because it's just happening to black people. Like what happened to Haiti relief or Nixon and most of the desegregation programs.", ">\n\nIt is not handed out by race don't believe the republican propaganda man.", ">\n\nSorry, u/Tryptortoise – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?", ">\n\nThe difference is that your place of birth or the poverty level of your parents and all the other factors I listed are circumstances surrounding you and your inherent qualities in you like race is.", ">\n\nBut being born into a given race is literally a circumstance of birth conveyed upon you by your parents. What makes race more “inherent” than poverty? And why should we be rendering assistance to things which are merely “circumstantial” as opposed to “inherent”. I’m not sure the distinction is real or important, but to the extent that it is, doesn’t the “inherent” category require more assistance?", ">\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.", ">\n\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \n\nSo you're switching positions? You're saying that we should help based on inherent characteristics but not circumstantial characteristics like poverty, family background, nationality, etc.?\n\nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.\n\nYou've just flipped your whole reasoning. So now you say we should only be helping people with disabilities and not those other categories then?", ">\n\nWe absolutely should help people based on both inherent and circumstantial characteristics that disadvantage them, that was never in contention, the point of the CMV is that skin color is not an inherent disadvantage, to claim it is puts it in the same category as birth defects and mental illnesses, and we shouldn't take it into account when assisting people. \nDo you enjoy purposefully interpreting my every statement in the worst possible light? All this conversation did is reiterate the body of the post, thanks.", ">\n\nThis logic makes no sense. One is not arguing that race is an inherent disadvantage in a physiological manner, but in a social manner. Race is a social construct that is used to group people. In many places, especially America, this social construct has been used to explicitly and implicitly harm these groups throughout history. Thus, one's race is an inherit disadvantage or advantage, not based on physiological differences, but social ones. You basically argue that saying race can be a disadvantage is supporting eugenics, which is far from the truth. \nMany people get frustrated when they feel cheated, but in every class, from dirt poor to filthy rich, non-white individuals face far more challenges in America than white ones. This is a fact. \nFurther, there are little to no government handouts based on race. America has one of the worst social safety nets in the western world, despite the highest GDP per capita in the world. If you are truly concerned about poverty you should look into issues like universal healthcare, changing the way we measure poverty (it is archaic, obsolete and fails many) and wealth inequality (see gini index). Few argue for your so called \"race-based handouts\" unless you're referring to reparations which is not a proposed solution to poverty but a justice initiative. You may be conflating \"handouts\" with affirmative action which aims to address issues created by historical discrimination, racism and segregation in education (and housing among other areas). \nI do not understand the issue with helping a group of people that have far more challenges than others? Slavery was not that long ago. Many older black Americans have grandparents who were slaves, legal discrimination/segregation has only been abolished for 60-70 years. There was still a school in Cleveland, MS segregated until 2016. Redlining was (is?) enforced well after it was banned in 1968. These effects are closer than you think. \nSome quality reading for you to learn why your logic fails: \n\"Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality\" - Oliver & Shapiro \n\"Medical Apartheid\" - Harriet A. Washington\n\"Progress for the Poor\" - Lane Kenworthy\n\"The New Jim Crow\" - Michelle Alexander", ">\n\nI can certainly see your point but why is equity your target and not equality? \nFrom a non-american perspective the answer seems decently simple. Use the money that you would use in handouts to build systems that raise the opportunity people have access to.\nNow only using handout money might not be enough but there are a lot of other places where you can delegate money from. Not the military cuz it secures general global peace(more peaceful now than practically any other period in his history since Pax Romana. \nYou could use the money usually used for foreign aid to help your own citizens. It might sound cynical but the highest priority of any well working nation should be its own people and when a lot of them are struggling then that should take precedence over foreign aid.\nUse all that gathered money to create institutions like NAV( Norwegian system that helps people get jobs and education and they get a monthly allowance that they can live on until they don't need it anymore) \nI'm no politician but surely there are better ways to secure equality for its own citizens.", ">\n\nBecause the US has equality on paper more or less, and yet a lot of people are still struggling. I want something near economic equity because I don't want people to suffer, and we should help those who can't help themselves, my problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.", ">\n\n\nmy problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.\n\nnobody's doing that, you only think they are because you don't want to acknowledge the effect racism has on opportunities for minorities, and keep desperately trying to claim its all purely based on racial backgrounds as if that's the only factor.", ">\n\nUmm wtf. Trevor Noah grew up very poor in apartheid South Africa. If you are trying to come up with some poster child for people raised with a silver spoon in their mouth and never discriminated on based on his race he is not it.", ">\n\nIt’s because you can’t erase bias in humans, and in all of these programs humans are decision makers. When you have group A in control and they administrate a program, the benefits will skew toward group A because of human nature. It happens subconsciously if not consciously.\nSo if we start from the premise that different races, ethnicities and genders have similar abilities sufficient for similar capacity for achievement, and we observe that groups B, C, etc are disproportionately disadvantaged, the only way to actually address that is to purposefully facilitate a change.\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”, Ibram Kendi says (paraphrasing) that because of this, every policy either explicitly combats racism in this way or it implicitly promotes existing racism by not doing so. It’s a good book.\nThe Cletus comment was pretty lame btw. And biased. For all you know that guy’s IQ is higher than yours.", ">\n\n\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”,\n\nFrom the same author who openly criticised interracial adoption. Opinion disregarded.", ">\n\nI believe what he said is that adopting children of other races doesn’t mean you can’t act racist. It was a bad tweet. It doesn’t have anything to do with this argument.", ">\n\nBut certain races also face verifiable additional hardships due to their race.", ">\n\nCertain races are stuck in certain classes due to systemic racism, but now it’s less about the race and more about being stuck in a class.\nSo let’s focus on helping out people based on class (because that has the highest impact on one’s life).\nIn other words, a rich black person should not be receiving more handouts than a poor white person. Let’s focus on class.", ">\n\nThey don't", ">\n\nThey do though. If a black kid has rich parents but for some odd reason they don't wanna pay for his college tuition, the black kid will have access to far more scholarships than a white kid with poor parents who actually NEEDS the scholarship.", ">\n\n… you realize majority of these scholarships still look At financial need? They don’t just look at race. They aren’t giving them to rich black students, they are giving it to poor black students.", ">\n\nNo, treating everyone equally is racist.", ">\n\nHow?", ">\n\nI dont know but a bunch of people here are arguing for just that :D", ">\n\nIt seems so", ">\n\nYou're looking at equity purely in terms of socioeconomic status, as if the only goal of social equity were to make certain groups wealthier. Instead, social equity is intended to build up certain groups to give them the same opportunity as others. Opportunity to pursue happiness however they want, even if it may not necessarily be socioeconomically advantageous (e.g. working in a prestigious research institution studying quantum particles). \nThis brings me to another point, you don't typically need to add equity to something that already has equity. You don't build a nice kitchen in a house that already has a nice kitchen. You build a nice kitchen in a house that's been neglected and needs its value increased. This concept of equity translates to minority groups that have been systematically neglected, or worse systematically torn down. Poor white people may have a rough life, and I fully sympathize with that, but their poverty is not as a result of a centuries-old system that sought to keep them downtrodden. \nCapitalism does play a role in systematically keeping poor people poor, and this applies to any race, gender identity, or sexual orientation. But we need to also be aware that systemic racism contributes an additional burden on black people, which is why they need additional aid from government and institutions to be able to have the same opportunity as a poor white person.", ">\n\n\nBut we need to also be aware that systemic racism contributes an additional burden on black people, which is why they need additional aid from government and institutions to be able to have the same opportunity as a poor white person.\n\nNo, you need to flush out the systemic racism, instead of adding more systemic racism to the system in the hopes it will compensate the other systemic racism.", ">\n\nAre you honestly arguing that leveling the playing field is racist? \nLet's say you have two poor people in a snowstorm. One of them has a coat and one doesn't. You give a coat to the one who doesn't. Does that mean you're actively harming or margnalizing the other person who already has a coat? Of course not. They're both still poor people, but now they both have a coat with which to survive the elements. Neither one was harmed by you handing over the coat. Neither one will suddenly become wealthy by you handing over the coat. All you did is give the one who didn't have a coat an opportunity.", ">\n\nOkay what would you do if the government started a program to relief proverty and 99% of the recipients were white. Even in centers that were stationed in neighborhoods with a black, Hispanic, Asian, Indian, etc population?", ">\n\nHalt it, investigate everyone responsible, hand out some prison time, do it better next time.", ">\n\nThen would you introduce racial guidelines of would you be willing to let it happen again?\nHistorically that is what's has happen. Like the community reinvestment act.\nThe government aims for a racially neutral program to lift the economy, the program is disproportionately benefits white people even in primarily black areas and no one cares about it until years after the program is discontinued.\nNot saying that programs meant exclusively for black people always work out. Those tend to start strong until an administrative change and then those in charge steal the money put in because the new administrative actively wants it to fail and no one is really going to look into it because it's just happening to black people. Like what happened to Haiti relief or Nixon and most of the desegregation programs.", ">\n\nIt is not handed out by race don't believe the republican propaganda man.", ">\n\nSorry, u/Tryptortoise – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nSorry, u/Lockdanon14 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?", ">\n\nThe difference is that your place of birth or the poverty level of your parents and all the other factors I listed are circumstances surrounding you and your inherent qualities in you like race is.", ">\n\nBut being born into a given race is literally a circumstance of birth conveyed upon you by your parents. What makes race more “inherent” than poverty? And why should we be rendering assistance to things which are merely “circumstantial” as opposed to “inherent”. I’m not sure the distinction is real or important, but to the extent that it is, doesn’t the “inherent” category require more assistance?", ">\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.", ">\n\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \n\nSo you're switching positions? You're saying that we should help based on inherent characteristics but not circumstantial characteristics like poverty, family background, nationality, etc.?\n\nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.\n\nYou've just flipped your whole reasoning. So now you say we should only be helping people with disabilities and not those other categories then?", ">\n\nWe absolutely should help people based on both inherent and circumstantial characteristics that disadvantage them, that was never in contention, the point of the CMV is that skin color is not an inherent disadvantage, to claim it is puts it in the same category as birth defects and mental illnesses, and we shouldn't take it into account when assisting people. \nDo you enjoy purposefully interpreting my every statement in the worst possible light? All this conversation did is reiterate the body of the post, thanks.", ">\n\nThis logic makes no sense. One is not arguing that race is an inherent disadvantage in a physiological manner, but in a social manner. Race is a social construct that is used to group people. In many places, especially America, this social construct has been used to explicitly and implicitly harm these groups throughout history. Thus, one's race is an inherit disadvantage or advantage, not based on physiological differences, but social ones. You basically argue that saying race can be a disadvantage is supporting eugenics, which is far from the truth. \nMany people get frustrated when they feel cheated, but in every class, from dirt poor to filthy rich, non-white individuals face far more challenges in America than white ones. This is a fact. \nFurther, there are little to no government handouts based on race. America has one of the worst social safety nets in the western world, despite the highest GDP per capita in the world. If you are truly concerned about poverty you should look into issues like universal healthcare, changing the way we measure poverty (it is archaic, obsolete and fails many) and wealth inequality (see gini index). Few argue for your so called \"race-based handouts\" unless you're referring to reparations which is not a proposed solution to poverty but a justice initiative. You may be conflating \"handouts\" with affirmative action which aims to address issues created by historical discrimination, racism and segregation in education (and housing among other areas). \nI do not understand the issue with helping a group of people that have far more challenges than others? Slavery was not that long ago. Many older black Americans have grandparents who were slaves, legal discrimination/segregation has only been abolished for 60-70 years. There was still a school in Cleveland, MS segregated until 2016. Redlining was (is?) enforced well after it was banned in 1968. These effects are closer than you think. \nSome quality reading for you to learn why your logic fails: \n\"Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality\" - Oliver & Shapiro \n\"Medical Apartheid\" - Harriet A. Washington\n\"Progress for the Poor\" - Lane Kenworthy\n\"The New Jim Crow\" - Michelle Alexander", ">\n\nI can certainly see your point but why is equity your target and not equality? \nFrom a non-american perspective the answer seems decently simple. Use the money that you would use in handouts to build systems that raise the opportunity people have access to.\nNow only using handout money might not be enough but there are a lot of other places where you can delegate money from. Not the military cuz it secures general global peace(more peaceful now than practically any other period in his history since Pax Romana. \nYou could use the money usually used for foreign aid to help your own citizens. It might sound cynical but the highest priority of any well working nation should be its own people and when a lot of them are struggling then that should take precedence over foreign aid.\nUse all that gathered money to create institutions like NAV( Norwegian system that helps people get jobs and education and they get a monthly allowance that they can live on until they don't need it anymore) \nI'm no politician but surely there are better ways to secure equality for its own citizens.", ">\n\nBecause the US has equality on paper more or less, and yet a lot of people are still struggling. I want something near economic equity because I don't want people to suffer, and we should help those who can't help themselves, my problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.", ">\n\n\nmy problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.\n\nnobody's doing that, you only think they are because you don't want to acknowledge the effect racism has on opportunities for minorities, and keep desperately trying to claim its all purely based on racial backgrounds as if that's the only factor.", ">\n\nUmm wtf. Trevor Noah grew up very poor in apartheid South Africa. If you are trying to come up with some poster child for people raised with a silver spoon in their mouth and never discriminated on based on his race he is not it.", ">\n\nIt’s because you can’t erase bias in humans, and in all of these programs humans are decision makers. When you have group A in control and they administrate a program, the benefits will skew toward group A because of human nature. It happens subconsciously if not consciously.\nSo if we start from the premise that different races, ethnicities and genders have similar abilities sufficient for similar capacity for achievement, and we observe that groups B, C, etc are disproportionately disadvantaged, the only way to actually address that is to purposefully facilitate a change.\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”, Ibram Kendi says (paraphrasing) that because of this, every policy either explicitly combats racism in this way or it implicitly promotes existing racism by not doing so. It’s a good book.\nThe Cletus comment was pretty lame btw. And biased. For all you know that guy’s IQ is higher than yours.", ">\n\n\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”,\n\nFrom the same author who openly criticised interracial adoption. Opinion disregarded.", ">\n\nI believe what he said is that adopting children of other races doesn’t mean you can’t act racist. It was a bad tweet. It doesn’t have anything to do with this argument.", ">\n\nBut certain races also face verifiable additional hardships due to their race.", ">\n\nCertain races are stuck in certain classes due to systemic racism, but now it’s less about the race and more about being stuck in a class.\nSo let’s focus on helping out people based on class (because that has the highest impact on one’s life).\nIn other words, a rich black person should not be receiving more handouts than a poor white person. Let’s focus on class.", ">\n\nThey don't", ">\n\nThey do though. If a black kid has rich parents but for some odd reason they don't wanna pay for his college tuition, the black kid will have access to far more scholarships than a white kid with poor parents who actually NEEDS the scholarship.", ">\n\n… you realize majority of these scholarships still look At financial need? They don’t just look at race. They aren’t giving them to rich black students, they are giving it to poor black students.", ">\n\nNo, treating everyone equally is racist.", ">\n\nHow?", ">\n\nI dont know but a bunch of people here are arguing for just that :D", ">\n\nIt seems so", ">\n\nYou're looking at equity purely in terms of socioeconomic status, as if the only goal of social equity were to make certain groups wealthier. Instead, social equity is intended to build up certain groups to give them the same opportunity as others. Opportunity to pursue happiness however they want, even if it may not necessarily be socioeconomically advantageous (e.g. working in a prestigious research institution studying quantum particles). \nThis brings me to another point, you don't typically need to add equity to something that already has equity. You don't build a nice kitchen in a house that already has a nice kitchen. You build a nice kitchen in a house that's been neglected and needs its value increased. This concept of equity translates to minority groups that have been systematically neglected, or worse systematically torn down. Poor white people may have a rough life, and I fully sympathize with that, but their poverty is not as a result of a centuries-old system that sought to keep them downtrodden. \nCapitalism does play a role in systematically keeping poor people poor, and this applies to any race, gender identity, or sexual orientation. But we need to also be aware that systemic racism contributes an additional burden on black people, which is why they need additional aid from government and institutions to be able to have the same opportunity as a poor white person.", ">\n\n\nBut we need to also be aware that systemic racism contributes an additional burden on black people, which is why they need additional aid from government and institutions to be able to have the same opportunity as a poor white person.\n\nNo, you need to flush out the systemic racism, instead of adding more systemic racism to the system in the hopes it will compensate the other systemic racism.", ">\n\nAre you honestly arguing that leveling the playing field is racist? \nLet's say you have two poor people in a snowstorm. One of them has a coat and one doesn't. You give a coat to the one who doesn't. Does that mean you're actively harming or margnalizing the other person who already has a coat? Of course not. They're both still poor people, but now they both have a coat with which to survive the elements. Neither one was harmed by you handing over the coat. Neither one will suddenly become wealthy by you handing over the coat. All you did is give the one who didn't have a coat an opportunity.", ">\n\nOkay what would you do if the government started a program to relief proverty and 99% of the recipients were white. Even in centers that were stationed in neighborhoods with a black, Hispanic, Asian, Indian, etc population?", ">\n\nHalt it, investigate everyone responsible, hand out some prison time, do it better next time.", ">\n\nThen would you introduce racial guidelines of would you be willing to let it happen again?\nHistorically that is what's has happen. Like the community reinvestment act.\nThe government aims for a racially neutral program to lift the economy, the program is disproportionately benefits white people even in primarily black areas and no one cares about it until years after the program is discontinued.\nNot saying that programs meant exclusively for black people always work out. Those tend to start strong until an administrative change and then those in charge steal the money put in because the new administrative actively wants it to fail and no one is really going to look into it because it's just happening to black people. Like what happened to Haiti relief or Nixon and most of the desegregation programs.", ">\n\nIt is not handed out by race don't believe the republican propaganda man.", ">\n\nSorry, u/Tryptortoise – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nSorry, u/Lockdanon14 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nAMEN!!" ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?", ">\n\nThe difference is that your place of birth or the poverty level of your parents and all the other factors I listed are circumstances surrounding you and your inherent qualities in you like race is.", ">\n\nBut being born into a given race is literally a circumstance of birth conveyed upon you by your parents. What makes race more “inherent” than poverty? And why should we be rendering assistance to things which are merely “circumstantial” as opposed to “inherent”. I’m not sure the distinction is real or important, but to the extent that it is, doesn’t the “inherent” category require more assistance?", ">\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.", ">\n\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \n\nSo you're switching positions? You're saying that we should help based on inherent characteristics but not circumstantial characteristics like poverty, family background, nationality, etc.?\n\nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.\n\nYou've just flipped your whole reasoning. So now you say we should only be helping people with disabilities and not those other categories then?", ">\n\nWe absolutely should help people based on both inherent and circumstantial characteristics that disadvantage them, that was never in contention, the point of the CMV is that skin color is not an inherent disadvantage, to claim it is puts it in the same category as birth defects and mental illnesses, and we shouldn't take it into account when assisting people. \nDo you enjoy purposefully interpreting my every statement in the worst possible light? All this conversation did is reiterate the body of the post, thanks.", ">\n\nThis logic makes no sense. One is not arguing that race is an inherent disadvantage in a physiological manner, but in a social manner. Race is a social construct that is used to group people. In many places, especially America, this social construct has been used to explicitly and implicitly harm these groups throughout history. Thus, one's race is an inherit disadvantage or advantage, not based on physiological differences, but social ones. You basically argue that saying race can be a disadvantage is supporting eugenics, which is far from the truth. \nMany people get frustrated when they feel cheated, but in every class, from dirt poor to filthy rich, non-white individuals face far more challenges in America than white ones. This is a fact. \nFurther, there are little to no government handouts based on race. America has one of the worst social safety nets in the western world, despite the highest GDP per capita in the world. If you are truly concerned about poverty you should look into issues like universal healthcare, changing the way we measure poverty (it is archaic, obsolete and fails many) and wealth inequality (see gini index). Few argue for your so called \"race-based handouts\" unless you're referring to reparations which is not a proposed solution to poverty but a justice initiative. You may be conflating \"handouts\" with affirmative action which aims to address issues created by historical discrimination, racism and segregation in education (and housing among other areas). \nI do not understand the issue with helping a group of people that have far more challenges than others? Slavery was not that long ago. Many older black Americans have grandparents who were slaves, legal discrimination/segregation has only been abolished for 60-70 years. There was still a school in Cleveland, MS segregated until 2016. Redlining was (is?) enforced well after it was banned in 1968. These effects are closer than you think. \nSome quality reading for you to learn why your logic fails: \n\"Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality\" - Oliver & Shapiro \n\"Medical Apartheid\" - Harriet A. Washington\n\"Progress for the Poor\" - Lane Kenworthy\n\"The New Jim Crow\" - Michelle Alexander", ">\n\nI can certainly see your point but why is equity your target and not equality? \nFrom a non-american perspective the answer seems decently simple. Use the money that you would use in handouts to build systems that raise the opportunity people have access to.\nNow only using handout money might not be enough but there are a lot of other places where you can delegate money from. Not the military cuz it secures general global peace(more peaceful now than practically any other period in his history since Pax Romana. \nYou could use the money usually used for foreign aid to help your own citizens. It might sound cynical but the highest priority of any well working nation should be its own people and when a lot of them are struggling then that should take precedence over foreign aid.\nUse all that gathered money to create institutions like NAV( Norwegian system that helps people get jobs and education and they get a monthly allowance that they can live on until they don't need it anymore) \nI'm no politician but surely there are better ways to secure equality for its own citizens.", ">\n\nBecause the US has equality on paper more or less, and yet a lot of people are still struggling. I want something near economic equity because I don't want people to suffer, and we should help those who can't help themselves, my problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.", ">\n\n\nmy problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.\n\nnobody's doing that, you only think they are because you don't want to acknowledge the effect racism has on opportunities for minorities, and keep desperately trying to claim its all purely based on racial backgrounds as if that's the only factor.", ">\n\nUmm wtf. Trevor Noah grew up very poor in apartheid South Africa. If you are trying to come up with some poster child for people raised with a silver spoon in their mouth and never discriminated on based on his race he is not it.", ">\n\nIt’s because you can’t erase bias in humans, and in all of these programs humans are decision makers. When you have group A in control and they administrate a program, the benefits will skew toward group A because of human nature. It happens subconsciously if not consciously.\nSo if we start from the premise that different races, ethnicities and genders have similar abilities sufficient for similar capacity for achievement, and we observe that groups B, C, etc are disproportionately disadvantaged, the only way to actually address that is to purposefully facilitate a change.\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”, Ibram Kendi says (paraphrasing) that because of this, every policy either explicitly combats racism in this way or it implicitly promotes existing racism by not doing so. It’s a good book.\nThe Cletus comment was pretty lame btw. And biased. For all you know that guy’s IQ is higher than yours.", ">\n\n\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”,\n\nFrom the same author who openly criticised interracial adoption. Opinion disregarded.", ">\n\nI believe what he said is that adopting children of other races doesn’t mean you can’t act racist. It was a bad tweet. It doesn’t have anything to do with this argument.", ">\n\nBut certain races also face verifiable additional hardships due to their race.", ">\n\nCertain races are stuck in certain classes due to systemic racism, but now it’s less about the race and more about being stuck in a class.\nSo let’s focus on helping out people based on class (because that has the highest impact on one’s life).\nIn other words, a rich black person should not be receiving more handouts than a poor white person. Let’s focus on class.", ">\n\nThey don't", ">\n\nThey do though. If a black kid has rich parents but for some odd reason they don't wanna pay for his college tuition, the black kid will have access to far more scholarships than a white kid with poor parents who actually NEEDS the scholarship.", ">\n\n… you realize majority of these scholarships still look At financial need? They don’t just look at race. They aren’t giving them to rich black students, they are giving it to poor black students.", ">\n\nNo, treating everyone equally is racist.", ">\n\nHow?", ">\n\nI dont know but a bunch of people here are arguing for just that :D", ">\n\nIt seems so", ">\n\nYou're looking at equity purely in terms of socioeconomic status, as if the only goal of social equity were to make certain groups wealthier. Instead, social equity is intended to build up certain groups to give them the same opportunity as others. Opportunity to pursue happiness however they want, even if it may not necessarily be socioeconomically advantageous (e.g. working in a prestigious research institution studying quantum particles). \nThis brings me to another point, you don't typically need to add equity to something that already has equity. You don't build a nice kitchen in a house that already has a nice kitchen. You build a nice kitchen in a house that's been neglected and needs its value increased. This concept of equity translates to minority groups that have been systematically neglected, or worse systematically torn down. Poor white people may have a rough life, and I fully sympathize with that, but their poverty is not as a result of a centuries-old system that sought to keep them downtrodden. \nCapitalism does play a role in systematically keeping poor people poor, and this applies to any race, gender identity, or sexual orientation. But we need to also be aware that systemic racism contributes an additional burden on black people, which is why they need additional aid from government and institutions to be able to have the same opportunity as a poor white person.", ">\n\n\nBut we need to also be aware that systemic racism contributes an additional burden on black people, which is why they need additional aid from government and institutions to be able to have the same opportunity as a poor white person.\n\nNo, you need to flush out the systemic racism, instead of adding more systemic racism to the system in the hopes it will compensate the other systemic racism.", ">\n\nAre you honestly arguing that leveling the playing field is racist? \nLet's say you have two poor people in a snowstorm. One of them has a coat and one doesn't. You give a coat to the one who doesn't. Does that mean you're actively harming or margnalizing the other person who already has a coat? Of course not. They're both still poor people, but now they both have a coat with which to survive the elements. Neither one was harmed by you handing over the coat. Neither one will suddenly become wealthy by you handing over the coat. All you did is give the one who didn't have a coat an opportunity.", ">\n\nOkay what would you do if the government started a program to relief proverty and 99% of the recipients were white. Even in centers that were stationed in neighborhoods with a black, Hispanic, Asian, Indian, etc population?", ">\n\nHalt it, investigate everyone responsible, hand out some prison time, do it better next time.", ">\n\nThen would you introduce racial guidelines of would you be willing to let it happen again?\nHistorically that is what's has happen. Like the community reinvestment act.\nThe government aims for a racially neutral program to lift the economy, the program is disproportionately benefits white people even in primarily black areas and no one cares about it until years after the program is discontinued.\nNot saying that programs meant exclusively for black people always work out. Those tend to start strong until an administrative change and then those in charge steal the money put in because the new administrative actively wants it to fail and no one is really going to look into it because it's just happening to black people. Like what happened to Haiti relief or Nixon and most of the desegregation programs.", ">\n\nIt is not handed out by race don't believe the republican propaganda man.", ">\n\nSorry, u/Tryptortoise – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nSorry, u/Lockdanon14 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nAMEN!!", ">\n\nIt might seem that government handouts are given because of race because issues like poverty tend to affect minorities at a disproportionate level compared to white Americans." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?", ">\n\nThe difference is that your place of birth or the poverty level of your parents and all the other factors I listed are circumstances surrounding you and your inherent qualities in you like race is.", ">\n\nBut being born into a given race is literally a circumstance of birth conveyed upon you by your parents. What makes race more “inherent” than poverty? And why should we be rendering assistance to things which are merely “circumstantial” as opposed to “inherent”. I’m not sure the distinction is real or important, but to the extent that it is, doesn’t the “inherent” category require more assistance?", ">\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.", ">\n\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \n\nSo you're switching positions? You're saying that we should help based on inherent characteristics but not circumstantial characteristics like poverty, family background, nationality, etc.?\n\nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.\n\nYou've just flipped your whole reasoning. So now you say we should only be helping people with disabilities and not those other categories then?", ">\n\nWe absolutely should help people based on both inherent and circumstantial characteristics that disadvantage them, that was never in contention, the point of the CMV is that skin color is not an inherent disadvantage, to claim it is puts it in the same category as birth defects and mental illnesses, and we shouldn't take it into account when assisting people. \nDo you enjoy purposefully interpreting my every statement in the worst possible light? All this conversation did is reiterate the body of the post, thanks.", ">\n\nThis logic makes no sense. One is not arguing that race is an inherent disadvantage in a physiological manner, but in a social manner. Race is a social construct that is used to group people. In many places, especially America, this social construct has been used to explicitly and implicitly harm these groups throughout history. Thus, one's race is an inherit disadvantage or advantage, not based on physiological differences, but social ones. You basically argue that saying race can be a disadvantage is supporting eugenics, which is far from the truth. \nMany people get frustrated when they feel cheated, but in every class, from dirt poor to filthy rich, non-white individuals face far more challenges in America than white ones. This is a fact. \nFurther, there are little to no government handouts based on race. America has one of the worst social safety nets in the western world, despite the highest GDP per capita in the world. If you are truly concerned about poverty you should look into issues like universal healthcare, changing the way we measure poverty (it is archaic, obsolete and fails many) and wealth inequality (see gini index). Few argue for your so called \"race-based handouts\" unless you're referring to reparations which is not a proposed solution to poverty but a justice initiative. You may be conflating \"handouts\" with affirmative action which aims to address issues created by historical discrimination, racism and segregation in education (and housing among other areas). \nI do not understand the issue with helping a group of people that have far more challenges than others? Slavery was not that long ago. Many older black Americans have grandparents who were slaves, legal discrimination/segregation has only been abolished for 60-70 years. There was still a school in Cleveland, MS segregated until 2016. Redlining was (is?) enforced well after it was banned in 1968. These effects are closer than you think. \nSome quality reading for you to learn why your logic fails: \n\"Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality\" - Oliver & Shapiro \n\"Medical Apartheid\" - Harriet A. Washington\n\"Progress for the Poor\" - Lane Kenworthy\n\"The New Jim Crow\" - Michelle Alexander", ">\n\nI can certainly see your point but why is equity your target and not equality? \nFrom a non-american perspective the answer seems decently simple. Use the money that you would use in handouts to build systems that raise the opportunity people have access to.\nNow only using handout money might not be enough but there are a lot of other places where you can delegate money from. Not the military cuz it secures general global peace(more peaceful now than practically any other period in his history since Pax Romana. \nYou could use the money usually used for foreign aid to help your own citizens. It might sound cynical but the highest priority of any well working nation should be its own people and when a lot of them are struggling then that should take precedence over foreign aid.\nUse all that gathered money to create institutions like NAV( Norwegian system that helps people get jobs and education and they get a monthly allowance that they can live on until they don't need it anymore) \nI'm no politician but surely there are better ways to secure equality for its own citizens.", ">\n\nBecause the US has equality on paper more or less, and yet a lot of people are still struggling. I want something near economic equity because I don't want people to suffer, and we should help those who can't help themselves, my problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.", ">\n\n\nmy problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.\n\nnobody's doing that, you only think they are because you don't want to acknowledge the effect racism has on opportunities for minorities, and keep desperately trying to claim its all purely based on racial backgrounds as if that's the only factor.", ">\n\nUmm wtf. Trevor Noah grew up very poor in apartheid South Africa. If you are trying to come up with some poster child for people raised with a silver spoon in their mouth and never discriminated on based on his race he is not it.", ">\n\nIt’s because you can’t erase bias in humans, and in all of these programs humans are decision makers. When you have group A in control and they administrate a program, the benefits will skew toward group A because of human nature. It happens subconsciously if not consciously.\nSo if we start from the premise that different races, ethnicities and genders have similar abilities sufficient for similar capacity for achievement, and we observe that groups B, C, etc are disproportionately disadvantaged, the only way to actually address that is to purposefully facilitate a change.\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”, Ibram Kendi says (paraphrasing) that because of this, every policy either explicitly combats racism in this way or it implicitly promotes existing racism by not doing so. It’s a good book.\nThe Cletus comment was pretty lame btw. And biased. For all you know that guy’s IQ is higher than yours.", ">\n\n\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”,\n\nFrom the same author who openly criticised interracial adoption. Opinion disregarded.", ">\n\nI believe what he said is that adopting children of other races doesn’t mean you can’t act racist. It was a bad tweet. It doesn’t have anything to do with this argument.", ">\n\nBut certain races also face verifiable additional hardships due to their race.", ">\n\nCertain races are stuck in certain classes due to systemic racism, but now it’s less about the race and more about being stuck in a class.\nSo let’s focus on helping out people based on class (because that has the highest impact on one’s life).\nIn other words, a rich black person should not be receiving more handouts than a poor white person. Let’s focus on class.", ">\n\nThey don't", ">\n\nThey do though. If a black kid has rich parents but for some odd reason they don't wanna pay for his college tuition, the black kid will have access to far more scholarships than a white kid with poor parents who actually NEEDS the scholarship.", ">\n\n… you realize majority of these scholarships still look At financial need? They don’t just look at race. They aren’t giving them to rich black students, they are giving it to poor black students.", ">\n\nNo, treating everyone equally is racist.", ">\n\nHow?", ">\n\nI dont know but a bunch of people here are arguing for just that :D", ">\n\nIt seems so", ">\n\nYou're looking at equity purely in terms of socioeconomic status, as if the only goal of social equity were to make certain groups wealthier. Instead, social equity is intended to build up certain groups to give them the same opportunity as others. Opportunity to pursue happiness however they want, even if it may not necessarily be socioeconomically advantageous (e.g. working in a prestigious research institution studying quantum particles). \nThis brings me to another point, you don't typically need to add equity to something that already has equity. You don't build a nice kitchen in a house that already has a nice kitchen. You build a nice kitchen in a house that's been neglected and needs its value increased. This concept of equity translates to minority groups that have been systematically neglected, or worse systematically torn down. Poor white people may have a rough life, and I fully sympathize with that, but their poverty is not as a result of a centuries-old system that sought to keep them downtrodden. \nCapitalism does play a role in systematically keeping poor people poor, and this applies to any race, gender identity, or sexual orientation. But we need to also be aware that systemic racism contributes an additional burden on black people, which is why they need additional aid from government and institutions to be able to have the same opportunity as a poor white person.", ">\n\n\nBut we need to also be aware that systemic racism contributes an additional burden on black people, which is why they need additional aid from government and institutions to be able to have the same opportunity as a poor white person.\n\nNo, you need to flush out the systemic racism, instead of adding more systemic racism to the system in the hopes it will compensate the other systemic racism.", ">\n\nAre you honestly arguing that leveling the playing field is racist? \nLet's say you have two poor people in a snowstorm. One of them has a coat and one doesn't. You give a coat to the one who doesn't. Does that mean you're actively harming or margnalizing the other person who already has a coat? Of course not. They're both still poor people, but now they both have a coat with which to survive the elements. Neither one was harmed by you handing over the coat. Neither one will suddenly become wealthy by you handing over the coat. All you did is give the one who didn't have a coat an opportunity.", ">\n\nOkay what would you do if the government started a program to relief proverty and 99% of the recipients were white. Even in centers that were stationed in neighborhoods with a black, Hispanic, Asian, Indian, etc population?", ">\n\nHalt it, investigate everyone responsible, hand out some prison time, do it better next time.", ">\n\nThen would you introduce racial guidelines of would you be willing to let it happen again?\nHistorically that is what's has happen. Like the community reinvestment act.\nThe government aims for a racially neutral program to lift the economy, the program is disproportionately benefits white people even in primarily black areas and no one cares about it until years after the program is discontinued.\nNot saying that programs meant exclusively for black people always work out. Those tend to start strong until an administrative change and then those in charge steal the money put in because the new administrative actively wants it to fail and no one is really going to look into it because it's just happening to black people. Like what happened to Haiti relief or Nixon and most of the desegregation programs.", ">\n\nIt is not handed out by race don't believe the republican propaganda man.", ">\n\nSorry, u/Tryptortoise – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nSorry, u/Lockdanon14 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nAMEN!!", ">\n\nIt might seem that government handouts are given because of race because issues like poverty tend to affect minorities at a disproportionate level compared to white Americans.", ">\n\nI understand where you're coming from, but there are a couple issues with that approach:\n\nAid programs in a capitalist society have a severely limited amount of resources with which to help people, and that amount keeps getting constrained by conservative parties.\nRace does add obstacles to someone's life in addition to those created by poverty level.\n\nRace or ethnicity should be taken into account because of those additional issues, and because you have to prioritize which people to help somehow.\nThey shouldn't be the sole factor, and in fact they never are: Trevor Noah would never qualify for any aid programs in the US today, and he wouldn't have qualified for any either if he'd gone to well-ranked private schools here when he was a child. \nMost aid programs have a much longer list of requirements than just race, ethnicity, or gender: Even the few attempts at reparations or UBI in the US took other factors into account since they didn't want to apply equally to Beyonce as well as a poor single mother." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?", ">\n\nThe difference is that your place of birth or the poverty level of your parents and all the other factors I listed are circumstances surrounding you and your inherent qualities in you like race is.", ">\n\nBut being born into a given race is literally a circumstance of birth conveyed upon you by your parents. What makes race more “inherent” than poverty? And why should we be rendering assistance to things which are merely “circumstantial” as opposed to “inherent”. I’m not sure the distinction is real or important, but to the extent that it is, doesn’t the “inherent” category require more assistance?", ">\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.", ">\n\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \n\nSo you're switching positions? You're saying that we should help based on inherent characteristics but not circumstantial characteristics like poverty, family background, nationality, etc.?\n\nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.\n\nYou've just flipped your whole reasoning. So now you say we should only be helping people with disabilities and not those other categories then?", ">\n\nWe absolutely should help people based on both inherent and circumstantial characteristics that disadvantage them, that was never in contention, the point of the CMV is that skin color is not an inherent disadvantage, to claim it is puts it in the same category as birth defects and mental illnesses, and we shouldn't take it into account when assisting people. \nDo you enjoy purposefully interpreting my every statement in the worst possible light? All this conversation did is reiterate the body of the post, thanks.", ">\n\nThis logic makes no sense. One is not arguing that race is an inherent disadvantage in a physiological manner, but in a social manner. Race is a social construct that is used to group people. In many places, especially America, this social construct has been used to explicitly and implicitly harm these groups throughout history. Thus, one's race is an inherit disadvantage or advantage, not based on physiological differences, but social ones. You basically argue that saying race can be a disadvantage is supporting eugenics, which is far from the truth. \nMany people get frustrated when they feel cheated, but in every class, from dirt poor to filthy rich, non-white individuals face far more challenges in America than white ones. This is a fact. \nFurther, there are little to no government handouts based on race. America has one of the worst social safety nets in the western world, despite the highest GDP per capita in the world. If you are truly concerned about poverty you should look into issues like universal healthcare, changing the way we measure poverty (it is archaic, obsolete and fails many) and wealth inequality (see gini index). Few argue for your so called \"race-based handouts\" unless you're referring to reparations which is not a proposed solution to poverty but a justice initiative. You may be conflating \"handouts\" with affirmative action which aims to address issues created by historical discrimination, racism and segregation in education (and housing among other areas). \nI do not understand the issue with helping a group of people that have far more challenges than others? Slavery was not that long ago. Many older black Americans have grandparents who were slaves, legal discrimination/segregation has only been abolished for 60-70 years. There was still a school in Cleveland, MS segregated until 2016. Redlining was (is?) enforced well after it was banned in 1968. These effects are closer than you think. \nSome quality reading for you to learn why your logic fails: \n\"Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality\" - Oliver & Shapiro \n\"Medical Apartheid\" - Harriet A. Washington\n\"Progress for the Poor\" - Lane Kenworthy\n\"The New Jim Crow\" - Michelle Alexander", ">\n\nI can certainly see your point but why is equity your target and not equality? \nFrom a non-american perspective the answer seems decently simple. Use the money that you would use in handouts to build systems that raise the opportunity people have access to.\nNow only using handout money might not be enough but there are a lot of other places where you can delegate money from. Not the military cuz it secures general global peace(more peaceful now than practically any other period in his history since Pax Romana. \nYou could use the money usually used for foreign aid to help your own citizens. It might sound cynical but the highest priority of any well working nation should be its own people and when a lot of them are struggling then that should take precedence over foreign aid.\nUse all that gathered money to create institutions like NAV( Norwegian system that helps people get jobs and education and they get a monthly allowance that they can live on until they don't need it anymore) \nI'm no politician but surely there are better ways to secure equality for its own citizens.", ">\n\nBecause the US has equality on paper more or less, and yet a lot of people are still struggling. I want something near economic equity because I don't want people to suffer, and we should help those who can't help themselves, my problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.", ">\n\n\nmy problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.\n\nnobody's doing that, you only think they are because you don't want to acknowledge the effect racism has on opportunities for minorities, and keep desperately trying to claim its all purely based on racial backgrounds as if that's the only factor.", ">\n\nUmm wtf. Trevor Noah grew up very poor in apartheid South Africa. If you are trying to come up with some poster child for people raised with a silver spoon in their mouth and never discriminated on based on his race he is not it.", ">\n\nIt’s because you can’t erase bias in humans, and in all of these programs humans are decision makers. When you have group A in control and they administrate a program, the benefits will skew toward group A because of human nature. It happens subconsciously if not consciously.\nSo if we start from the premise that different races, ethnicities and genders have similar abilities sufficient for similar capacity for achievement, and we observe that groups B, C, etc are disproportionately disadvantaged, the only way to actually address that is to purposefully facilitate a change.\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”, Ibram Kendi says (paraphrasing) that because of this, every policy either explicitly combats racism in this way or it implicitly promotes existing racism by not doing so. It’s a good book.\nThe Cletus comment was pretty lame btw. And biased. For all you know that guy’s IQ is higher than yours.", ">\n\n\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”,\n\nFrom the same author who openly criticised interracial adoption. Opinion disregarded.", ">\n\nI believe what he said is that adopting children of other races doesn’t mean you can’t act racist. It was a bad tweet. It doesn’t have anything to do with this argument.", ">\n\nBut certain races also face verifiable additional hardships due to their race.", ">\n\nCertain races are stuck in certain classes due to systemic racism, but now it’s less about the race and more about being stuck in a class.\nSo let’s focus on helping out people based on class (because that has the highest impact on one’s life).\nIn other words, a rich black person should not be receiving more handouts than a poor white person. Let’s focus on class.", ">\n\nThey don't", ">\n\nThey do though. If a black kid has rich parents but for some odd reason they don't wanna pay for his college tuition, the black kid will have access to far more scholarships than a white kid with poor parents who actually NEEDS the scholarship.", ">\n\n… you realize majority of these scholarships still look At financial need? They don’t just look at race. They aren’t giving them to rich black students, they are giving it to poor black students.", ">\n\nNo, treating everyone equally is racist.", ">\n\nHow?", ">\n\nI dont know but a bunch of people here are arguing for just that :D", ">\n\nIt seems so", ">\n\nYou're looking at equity purely in terms of socioeconomic status, as if the only goal of social equity were to make certain groups wealthier. Instead, social equity is intended to build up certain groups to give them the same opportunity as others. Opportunity to pursue happiness however they want, even if it may not necessarily be socioeconomically advantageous (e.g. working in a prestigious research institution studying quantum particles). \nThis brings me to another point, you don't typically need to add equity to something that already has equity. You don't build a nice kitchen in a house that already has a nice kitchen. You build a nice kitchen in a house that's been neglected and needs its value increased. This concept of equity translates to minority groups that have been systematically neglected, or worse systematically torn down. Poor white people may have a rough life, and I fully sympathize with that, but their poverty is not as a result of a centuries-old system that sought to keep them downtrodden. \nCapitalism does play a role in systematically keeping poor people poor, and this applies to any race, gender identity, or sexual orientation. But we need to also be aware that systemic racism contributes an additional burden on black people, which is why they need additional aid from government and institutions to be able to have the same opportunity as a poor white person.", ">\n\n\nBut we need to also be aware that systemic racism contributes an additional burden on black people, which is why they need additional aid from government and institutions to be able to have the same opportunity as a poor white person.\n\nNo, you need to flush out the systemic racism, instead of adding more systemic racism to the system in the hopes it will compensate the other systemic racism.", ">\n\nAre you honestly arguing that leveling the playing field is racist? \nLet's say you have two poor people in a snowstorm. One of them has a coat and one doesn't. You give a coat to the one who doesn't. Does that mean you're actively harming or margnalizing the other person who already has a coat? Of course not. They're both still poor people, but now they both have a coat with which to survive the elements. Neither one was harmed by you handing over the coat. Neither one will suddenly become wealthy by you handing over the coat. All you did is give the one who didn't have a coat an opportunity.", ">\n\nOkay what would you do if the government started a program to relief proverty and 99% of the recipients were white. Even in centers that were stationed in neighborhoods with a black, Hispanic, Asian, Indian, etc population?", ">\n\nHalt it, investigate everyone responsible, hand out some prison time, do it better next time.", ">\n\nThen would you introduce racial guidelines of would you be willing to let it happen again?\nHistorically that is what's has happen. Like the community reinvestment act.\nThe government aims for a racially neutral program to lift the economy, the program is disproportionately benefits white people even in primarily black areas and no one cares about it until years after the program is discontinued.\nNot saying that programs meant exclusively for black people always work out. Those tend to start strong until an administrative change and then those in charge steal the money put in because the new administrative actively wants it to fail and no one is really going to look into it because it's just happening to black people. Like what happened to Haiti relief or Nixon and most of the desegregation programs.", ">\n\nIt is not handed out by race don't believe the republican propaganda man.", ">\n\nSorry, u/Tryptortoise – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nSorry, u/Lockdanon14 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nAMEN!!", ">\n\nIt might seem that government handouts are given because of race because issues like poverty tend to affect minorities at a disproportionate level compared to white Americans.", ">\n\nI understand where you're coming from, but there are a couple issues with that approach:\n\nAid programs in a capitalist society have a severely limited amount of resources with which to help people, and that amount keeps getting constrained by conservative parties.\nRace does add obstacles to someone's life in addition to those created by poverty level.\n\nRace or ethnicity should be taken into account because of those additional issues, and because you have to prioritize which people to help somehow.\nThey shouldn't be the sole factor, and in fact they never are: Trevor Noah would never qualify for any aid programs in the US today, and he wouldn't have qualified for any either if he'd gone to well-ranked private schools here when he was a child. \nMost aid programs have a much longer list of requirements than just race, ethnicity, or gender: Even the few attempts at reparations or UBI in the US took other factors into account since they didn't want to apply equally to Beyonce as well as a poor single mother.", ">\n\nyup." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?", ">\n\nThe difference is that your place of birth or the poverty level of your parents and all the other factors I listed are circumstances surrounding you and your inherent qualities in you like race is.", ">\n\nBut being born into a given race is literally a circumstance of birth conveyed upon you by your parents. What makes race more “inherent” than poverty? And why should we be rendering assistance to things which are merely “circumstantial” as opposed to “inherent”. I’m not sure the distinction is real or important, but to the extent that it is, doesn’t the “inherent” category require more assistance?", ">\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.", ">\n\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \n\nSo you're switching positions? You're saying that we should help based on inherent characteristics but not circumstantial characteristics like poverty, family background, nationality, etc.?\n\nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.\n\nYou've just flipped your whole reasoning. So now you say we should only be helping people with disabilities and not those other categories then?", ">\n\nWe absolutely should help people based on both inherent and circumstantial characteristics that disadvantage them, that was never in contention, the point of the CMV is that skin color is not an inherent disadvantage, to claim it is puts it in the same category as birth defects and mental illnesses, and we shouldn't take it into account when assisting people. \nDo you enjoy purposefully interpreting my every statement in the worst possible light? All this conversation did is reiterate the body of the post, thanks.", ">\n\nThis logic makes no sense. One is not arguing that race is an inherent disadvantage in a physiological manner, but in a social manner. Race is a social construct that is used to group people. In many places, especially America, this social construct has been used to explicitly and implicitly harm these groups throughout history. Thus, one's race is an inherit disadvantage or advantage, not based on physiological differences, but social ones. You basically argue that saying race can be a disadvantage is supporting eugenics, which is far from the truth. \nMany people get frustrated when they feel cheated, but in every class, from dirt poor to filthy rich, non-white individuals face far more challenges in America than white ones. This is a fact. \nFurther, there are little to no government handouts based on race. America has one of the worst social safety nets in the western world, despite the highest GDP per capita in the world. If you are truly concerned about poverty you should look into issues like universal healthcare, changing the way we measure poverty (it is archaic, obsolete and fails many) and wealth inequality (see gini index). Few argue for your so called \"race-based handouts\" unless you're referring to reparations which is not a proposed solution to poverty but a justice initiative. You may be conflating \"handouts\" with affirmative action which aims to address issues created by historical discrimination, racism and segregation in education (and housing among other areas). \nI do not understand the issue with helping a group of people that have far more challenges than others? Slavery was not that long ago. Many older black Americans have grandparents who were slaves, legal discrimination/segregation has only been abolished for 60-70 years. There was still a school in Cleveland, MS segregated until 2016. Redlining was (is?) enforced well after it was banned in 1968. These effects are closer than you think. \nSome quality reading for you to learn why your logic fails: \n\"Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality\" - Oliver & Shapiro \n\"Medical Apartheid\" - Harriet A. Washington\n\"Progress for the Poor\" - Lane Kenworthy\n\"The New Jim Crow\" - Michelle Alexander", ">\n\nI can certainly see your point but why is equity your target and not equality? \nFrom a non-american perspective the answer seems decently simple. Use the money that you would use in handouts to build systems that raise the opportunity people have access to.\nNow only using handout money might not be enough but there are a lot of other places where you can delegate money from. Not the military cuz it secures general global peace(more peaceful now than practically any other period in his history since Pax Romana. \nYou could use the money usually used for foreign aid to help your own citizens. It might sound cynical but the highest priority of any well working nation should be its own people and when a lot of them are struggling then that should take precedence over foreign aid.\nUse all that gathered money to create institutions like NAV( Norwegian system that helps people get jobs and education and they get a monthly allowance that they can live on until they don't need it anymore) \nI'm no politician but surely there are better ways to secure equality for its own citizens.", ">\n\nBecause the US has equality on paper more or less, and yet a lot of people are still struggling. I want something near economic equity because I don't want people to suffer, and we should help those who can't help themselves, my problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.", ">\n\n\nmy problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.\n\nnobody's doing that, you only think they are because you don't want to acknowledge the effect racism has on opportunities for minorities, and keep desperately trying to claim its all purely based on racial backgrounds as if that's the only factor.", ">\n\nUmm wtf. Trevor Noah grew up very poor in apartheid South Africa. If you are trying to come up with some poster child for people raised with a silver spoon in their mouth and never discriminated on based on his race he is not it.", ">\n\nIt’s because you can’t erase bias in humans, and in all of these programs humans are decision makers. When you have group A in control and they administrate a program, the benefits will skew toward group A because of human nature. It happens subconsciously if not consciously.\nSo if we start from the premise that different races, ethnicities and genders have similar abilities sufficient for similar capacity for achievement, and we observe that groups B, C, etc are disproportionately disadvantaged, the only way to actually address that is to purposefully facilitate a change.\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”, Ibram Kendi says (paraphrasing) that because of this, every policy either explicitly combats racism in this way or it implicitly promotes existing racism by not doing so. It’s a good book.\nThe Cletus comment was pretty lame btw. And biased. For all you know that guy’s IQ is higher than yours.", ">\n\n\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”,\n\nFrom the same author who openly criticised interracial adoption. Opinion disregarded.", ">\n\nI believe what he said is that adopting children of other races doesn’t mean you can’t act racist. It was a bad tweet. It doesn’t have anything to do with this argument.", ">\n\nBut certain races also face verifiable additional hardships due to their race.", ">\n\nCertain races are stuck in certain classes due to systemic racism, but now it’s less about the race and more about being stuck in a class.\nSo let’s focus on helping out people based on class (because that has the highest impact on one’s life).\nIn other words, a rich black person should not be receiving more handouts than a poor white person. Let’s focus on class.", ">\n\nThey don't", ">\n\nThey do though. If a black kid has rich parents but for some odd reason they don't wanna pay for his college tuition, the black kid will have access to far more scholarships than a white kid with poor parents who actually NEEDS the scholarship.", ">\n\n… you realize majority of these scholarships still look At financial need? They don’t just look at race. They aren’t giving them to rich black students, they are giving it to poor black students.", ">\n\nNo, treating everyone equally is racist.", ">\n\nHow?", ">\n\nI dont know but a bunch of people here are arguing for just that :D", ">\n\nIt seems so", ">\n\nYou're looking at equity purely in terms of socioeconomic status, as if the only goal of social equity were to make certain groups wealthier. Instead, social equity is intended to build up certain groups to give them the same opportunity as others. Opportunity to pursue happiness however they want, even if it may not necessarily be socioeconomically advantageous (e.g. working in a prestigious research institution studying quantum particles). \nThis brings me to another point, you don't typically need to add equity to something that already has equity. You don't build a nice kitchen in a house that already has a nice kitchen. You build a nice kitchen in a house that's been neglected and needs its value increased. This concept of equity translates to minority groups that have been systematically neglected, or worse systematically torn down. Poor white people may have a rough life, and I fully sympathize with that, but their poverty is not as a result of a centuries-old system that sought to keep them downtrodden. \nCapitalism does play a role in systematically keeping poor people poor, and this applies to any race, gender identity, or sexual orientation. But we need to also be aware that systemic racism contributes an additional burden on black people, which is why they need additional aid from government and institutions to be able to have the same opportunity as a poor white person.", ">\n\n\nBut we need to also be aware that systemic racism contributes an additional burden on black people, which is why they need additional aid from government and institutions to be able to have the same opportunity as a poor white person.\n\nNo, you need to flush out the systemic racism, instead of adding more systemic racism to the system in the hopes it will compensate the other systemic racism.", ">\n\nAre you honestly arguing that leveling the playing field is racist? \nLet's say you have two poor people in a snowstorm. One of them has a coat and one doesn't. You give a coat to the one who doesn't. Does that mean you're actively harming or margnalizing the other person who already has a coat? Of course not. They're both still poor people, but now they both have a coat with which to survive the elements. Neither one was harmed by you handing over the coat. Neither one will suddenly become wealthy by you handing over the coat. All you did is give the one who didn't have a coat an opportunity.", ">\n\nOkay what would you do if the government started a program to relief proverty and 99% of the recipients were white. Even in centers that were stationed in neighborhoods with a black, Hispanic, Asian, Indian, etc population?", ">\n\nHalt it, investigate everyone responsible, hand out some prison time, do it better next time.", ">\n\nThen would you introduce racial guidelines of would you be willing to let it happen again?\nHistorically that is what's has happen. Like the community reinvestment act.\nThe government aims for a racially neutral program to lift the economy, the program is disproportionately benefits white people even in primarily black areas and no one cares about it until years after the program is discontinued.\nNot saying that programs meant exclusively for black people always work out. Those tend to start strong until an administrative change and then those in charge steal the money put in because the new administrative actively wants it to fail and no one is really going to look into it because it's just happening to black people. Like what happened to Haiti relief or Nixon and most of the desegregation programs.", ">\n\nIt is not handed out by race don't believe the republican propaganda man.", ">\n\nSorry, u/Tryptortoise – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nSorry, u/Lockdanon14 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nAMEN!!", ">\n\nIt might seem that government handouts are given because of race because issues like poverty tend to affect minorities at a disproportionate level compared to white Americans.", ">\n\nI understand where you're coming from, but there are a couple issues with that approach:\n\nAid programs in a capitalist society have a severely limited amount of resources with which to help people, and that amount keeps getting constrained by conservative parties.\nRace does add obstacles to someone's life in addition to those created by poverty level.\n\nRace or ethnicity should be taken into account because of those additional issues, and because you have to prioritize which people to help somehow.\nThey shouldn't be the sole factor, and in fact they never are: Trevor Noah would never qualify for any aid programs in the US today, and he wouldn't have qualified for any either if he'd gone to well-ranked private schools here when he was a child. \nMost aid programs have a much longer list of requirements than just race, ethnicity, or gender: Even the few attempts at reparations or UBI in the US took other factors into account since they didn't want to apply equally to Beyonce as well as a poor single mother.", ">\n\nyup.", ">\n\nI think you’ll find that the largest beneficiaries of college admissions affirmative action are white makes. This is because of the desire for gender parity in universities. Males are admitted to programs they do not qualify for to maintain a 50-50 gender balance. Or as close as possible. Absent this admission preference, competitive universities would be at 70 percent female. \nFinally, racial preferences in admission or other benefits does not signal inferiority. It seeks to address current and historical structural disadvantages. \nYou also might consider sports like golf, tennis and swimming (not to mention, ice hockey, curling, skiing) which all favor white makes over those of other races due to financial and cultural factors. There is also the legacy admissions which are deeply problematic." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?", ">\n\nThe difference is that your place of birth or the poverty level of your parents and all the other factors I listed are circumstances surrounding you and your inherent qualities in you like race is.", ">\n\nBut being born into a given race is literally a circumstance of birth conveyed upon you by your parents. What makes race more “inherent” than poverty? And why should we be rendering assistance to things which are merely “circumstantial” as opposed to “inherent”. I’m not sure the distinction is real or important, but to the extent that it is, doesn’t the “inherent” category require more assistance?", ">\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.", ">\n\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \n\nSo you're switching positions? You're saying that we should help based on inherent characteristics but not circumstantial characteristics like poverty, family background, nationality, etc.?\n\nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.\n\nYou've just flipped your whole reasoning. So now you say we should only be helping people with disabilities and not those other categories then?", ">\n\nWe absolutely should help people based on both inherent and circumstantial characteristics that disadvantage them, that was never in contention, the point of the CMV is that skin color is not an inherent disadvantage, to claim it is puts it in the same category as birth defects and mental illnesses, and we shouldn't take it into account when assisting people. \nDo you enjoy purposefully interpreting my every statement in the worst possible light? All this conversation did is reiterate the body of the post, thanks.", ">\n\nThis logic makes no sense. One is not arguing that race is an inherent disadvantage in a physiological manner, but in a social manner. Race is a social construct that is used to group people. In many places, especially America, this social construct has been used to explicitly and implicitly harm these groups throughout history. Thus, one's race is an inherit disadvantage or advantage, not based on physiological differences, but social ones. You basically argue that saying race can be a disadvantage is supporting eugenics, which is far from the truth. \nMany people get frustrated when they feel cheated, but in every class, from dirt poor to filthy rich, non-white individuals face far more challenges in America than white ones. This is a fact. \nFurther, there are little to no government handouts based on race. America has one of the worst social safety nets in the western world, despite the highest GDP per capita in the world. If you are truly concerned about poverty you should look into issues like universal healthcare, changing the way we measure poverty (it is archaic, obsolete and fails many) and wealth inequality (see gini index). Few argue for your so called \"race-based handouts\" unless you're referring to reparations which is not a proposed solution to poverty but a justice initiative. You may be conflating \"handouts\" with affirmative action which aims to address issues created by historical discrimination, racism and segregation in education (and housing among other areas). \nI do not understand the issue with helping a group of people that have far more challenges than others? Slavery was not that long ago. Many older black Americans have grandparents who were slaves, legal discrimination/segregation has only been abolished for 60-70 years. There was still a school in Cleveland, MS segregated until 2016. Redlining was (is?) enforced well after it was banned in 1968. These effects are closer than you think. \nSome quality reading for you to learn why your logic fails: \n\"Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality\" - Oliver & Shapiro \n\"Medical Apartheid\" - Harriet A. Washington\n\"Progress for the Poor\" - Lane Kenworthy\n\"The New Jim Crow\" - Michelle Alexander", ">\n\nI can certainly see your point but why is equity your target and not equality? \nFrom a non-american perspective the answer seems decently simple. Use the money that you would use in handouts to build systems that raise the opportunity people have access to.\nNow only using handout money might not be enough but there are a lot of other places where you can delegate money from. Not the military cuz it secures general global peace(more peaceful now than practically any other period in his history since Pax Romana. \nYou could use the money usually used for foreign aid to help your own citizens. It might sound cynical but the highest priority of any well working nation should be its own people and when a lot of them are struggling then that should take precedence over foreign aid.\nUse all that gathered money to create institutions like NAV( Norwegian system that helps people get jobs and education and they get a monthly allowance that they can live on until they don't need it anymore) \nI'm no politician but surely there are better ways to secure equality for its own citizens.", ">\n\nBecause the US has equality on paper more or less, and yet a lot of people are still struggling. I want something near economic equity because I don't want people to suffer, and we should help those who can't help themselves, my problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.", ">\n\n\nmy problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.\n\nnobody's doing that, you only think they are because you don't want to acknowledge the effect racism has on opportunities for minorities, and keep desperately trying to claim its all purely based on racial backgrounds as if that's the only factor.", ">\n\nUmm wtf. Trevor Noah grew up very poor in apartheid South Africa. If you are trying to come up with some poster child for people raised with a silver spoon in their mouth and never discriminated on based on his race he is not it.", ">\n\nIt’s because you can’t erase bias in humans, and in all of these programs humans are decision makers. When you have group A in control and they administrate a program, the benefits will skew toward group A because of human nature. It happens subconsciously if not consciously.\nSo if we start from the premise that different races, ethnicities and genders have similar abilities sufficient for similar capacity for achievement, and we observe that groups B, C, etc are disproportionately disadvantaged, the only way to actually address that is to purposefully facilitate a change.\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”, Ibram Kendi says (paraphrasing) that because of this, every policy either explicitly combats racism in this way or it implicitly promotes existing racism by not doing so. It’s a good book.\nThe Cletus comment was pretty lame btw. And biased. For all you know that guy’s IQ is higher than yours.", ">\n\n\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”,\n\nFrom the same author who openly criticised interracial adoption. Opinion disregarded.", ">\n\nI believe what he said is that adopting children of other races doesn’t mean you can’t act racist. It was a bad tweet. It doesn’t have anything to do with this argument.", ">\n\nBut certain races also face verifiable additional hardships due to their race.", ">\n\nCertain races are stuck in certain classes due to systemic racism, but now it’s less about the race and more about being stuck in a class.\nSo let’s focus on helping out people based on class (because that has the highest impact on one’s life).\nIn other words, a rich black person should not be receiving more handouts than a poor white person. Let’s focus on class.", ">\n\nThey don't", ">\n\nThey do though. If a black kid has rich parents but for some odd reason they don't wanna pay for his college tuition, the black kid will have access to far more scholarships than a white kid with poor parents who actually NEEDS the scholarship.", ">\n\n… you realize majority of these scholarships still look At financial need? They don’t just look at race. They aren’t giving them to rich black students, they are giving it to poor black students.", ">\n\nNo, treating everyone equally is racist.", ">\n\nHow?", ">\n\nI dont know but a bunch of people here are arguing for just that :D", ">\n\nIt seems so", ">\n\nYou're looking at equity purely in terms of socioeconomic status, as if the only goal of social equity were to make certain groups wealthier. Instead, social equity is intended to build up certain groups to give them the same opportunity as others. Opportunity to pursue happiness however they want, even if it may not necessarily be socioeconomically advantageous (e.g. working in a prestigious research institution studying quantum particles). \nThis brings me to another point, you don't typically need to add equity to something that already has equity. You don't build a nice kitchen in a house that already has a nice kitchen. You build a nice kitchen in a house that's been neglected and needs its value increased. This concept of equity translates to minority groups that have been systematically neglected, or worse systematically torn down. Poor white people may have a rough life, and I fully sympathize with that, but their poverty is not as a result of a centuries-old system that sought to keep them downtrodden. \nCapitalism does play a role in systematically keeping poor people poor, and this applies to any race, gender identity, or sexual orientation. But we need to also be aware that systemic racism contributes an additional burden on black people, which is why they need additional aid from government and institutions to be able to have the same opportunity as a poor white person.", ">\n\n\nBut we need to also be aware that systemic racism contributes an additional burden on black people, which is why they need additional aid from government and institutions to be able to have the same opportunity as a poor white person.\n\nNo, you need to flush out the systemic racism, instead of adding more systemic racism to the system in the hopes it will compensate the other systemic racism.", ">\n\nAre you honestly arguing that leveling the playing field is racist? \nLet's say you have two poor people in a snowstorm. One of them has a coat and one doesn't. You give a coat to the one who doesn't. Does that mean you're actively harming or margnalizing the other person who already has a coat? Of course not. They're both still poor people, but now they both have a coat with which to survive the elements. Neither one was harmed by you handing over the coat. Neither one will suddenly become wealthy by you handing over the coat. All you did is give the one who didn't have a coat an opportunity.", ">\n\nOkay what would you do if the government started a program to relief proverty and 99% of the recipients were white. Even in centers that were stationed in neighborhoods with a black, Hispanic, Asian, Indian, etc population?", ">\n\nHalt it, investigate everyone responsible, hand out some prison time, do it better next time.", ">\n\nThen would you introduce racial guidelines of would you be willing to let it happen again?\nHistorically that is what's has happen. Like the community reinvestment act.\nThe government aims for a racially neutral program to lift the economy, the program is disproportionately benefits white people even in primarily black areas and no one cares about it until years after the program is discontinued.\nNot saying that programs meant exclusively for black people always work out. Those tend to start strong until an administrative change and then those in charge steal the money put in because the new administrative actively wants it to fail and no one is really going to look into it because it's just happening to black people. Like what happened to Haiti relief or Nixon and most of the desegregation programs.", ">\n\nIt is not handed out by race don't believe the republican propaganda man.", ">\n\nSorry, u/Tryptortoise – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nSorry, u/Lockdanon14 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nAMEN!!", ">\n\nIt might seem that government handouts are given because of race because issues like poverty tend to affect minorities at a disproportionate level compared to white Americans.", ">\n\nI understand where you're coming from, but there are a couple issues with that approach:\n\nAid programs in a capitalist society have a severely limited amount of resources with which to help people, and that amount keeps getting constrained by conservative parties.\nRace does add obstacles to someone's life in addition to those created by poverty level.\n\nRace or ethnicity should be taken into account because of those additional issues, and because you have to prioritize which people to help somehow.\nThey shouldn't be the sole factor, and in fact they never are: Trevor Noah would never qualify for any aid programs in the US today, and he wouldn't have qualified for any either if he'd gone to well-ranked private schools here when he was a child. \nMost aid programs have a much longer list of requirements than just race, ethnicity, or gender: Even the few attempts at reparations or UBI in the US took other factors into account since they didn't want to apply equally to Beyonce as well as a poor single mother.", ">\n\nyup.", ">\n\nI think you’ll find that the largest beneficiaries of college admissions affirmative action are white makes. This is because of the desire for gender parity in universities. Males are admitted to programs they do not qualify for to maintain a 50-50 gender balance. Or as close as possible. Absent this admission preference, competitive universities would be at 70 percent female. \nFinally, racial preferences in admission or other benefits does not signal inferiority. It seeks to address current and historical structural disadvantages. \nYou also might consider sports like golf, tennis and swimming (not to mention, ice hockey, curling, skiing) which all favor white makes over those of other races due to financial and cultural factors. There is also the legacy admissions which are deeply problematic.", ">\n\nSorry, u/Complex_Air8 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?", ">\n\nThe difference is that your place of birth or the poverty level of your parents and all the other factors I listed are circumstances surrounding you and your inherent qualities in you like race is.", ">\n\nBut being born into a given race is literally a circumstance of birth conveyed upon you by your parents. What makes race more “inherent” than poverty? And why should we be rendering assistance to things which are merely “circumstantial” as opposed to “inherent”. I’m not sure the distinction is real or important, but to the extent that it is, doesn’t the “inherent” category require more assistance?", ">\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.", ">\n\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \n\nSo you're switching positions? You're saying that we should help based on inherent characteristics but not circumstantial characteristics like poverty, family background, nationality, etc.?\n\nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.\n\nYou've just flipped your whole reasoning. So now you say we should only be helping people with disabilities and not those other categories then?", ">\n\nWe absolutely should help people based on both inherent and circumstantial characteristics that disadvantage them, that was never in contention, the point of the CMV is that skin color is not an inherent disadvantage, to claim it is puts it in the same category as birth defects and mental illnesses, and we shouldn't take it into account when assisting people. \nDo you enjoy purposefully interpreting my every statement in the worst possible light? All this conversation did is reiterate the body of the post, thanks.", ">\n\nThis logic makes no sense. One is not arguing that race is an inherent disadvantage in a physiological manner, but in a social manner. Race is a social construct that is used to group people. In many places, especially America, this social construct has been used to explicitly and implicitly harm these groups throughout history. Thus, one's race is an inherit disadvantage or advantage, not based on physiological differences, but social ones. You basically argue that saying race can be a disadvantage is supporting eugenics, which is far from the truth. \nMany people get frustrated when they feel cheated, but in every class, from dirt poor to filthy rich, non-white individuals face far more challenges in America than white ones. This is a fact. \nFurther, there are little to no government handouts based on race. America has one of the worst social safety nets in the western world, despite the highest GDP per capita in the world. If you are truly concerned about poverty you should look into issues like universal healthcare, changing the way we measure poverty (it is archaic, obsolete and fails many) and wealth inequality (see gini index). Few argue for your so called \"race-based handouts\" unless you're referring to reparations which is not a proposed solution to poverty but a justice initiative. You may be conflating \"handouts\" with affirmative action which aims to address issues created by historical discrimination, racism and segregation in education (and housing among other areas). \nI do not understand the issue with helping a group of people that have far more challenges than others? Slavery was not that long ago. Many older black Americans have grandparents who were slaves, legal discrimination/segregation has only been abolished for 60-70 years. There was still a school in Cleveland, MS segregated until 2016. Redlining was (is?) enforced well after it was banned in 1968. These effects are closer than you think. \nSome quality reading for you to learn why your logic fails: \n\"Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality\" - Oliver & Shapiro \n\"Medical Apartheid\" - Harriet A. Washington\n\"Progress for the Poor\" - Lane Kenworthy\n\"The New Jim Crow\" - Michelle Alexander", ">\n\nI can certainly see your point but why is equity your target and not equality? \nFrom a non-american perspective the answer seems decently simple. Use the money that you would use in handouts to build systems that raise the opportunity people have access to.\nNow only using handout money might not be enough but there are a lot of other places where you can delegate money from. Not the military cuz it secures general global peace(more peaceful now than practically any other period in his history since Pax Romana. \nYou could use the money usually used for foreign aid to help your own citizens. It might sound cynical but the highest priority of any well working nation should be its own people and when a lot of them are struggling then that should take precedence over foreign aid.\nUse all that gathered money to create institutions like NAV( Norwegian system that helps people get jobs and education and they get a monthly allowance that they can live on until they don't need it anymore) \nI'm no politician but surely there are better ways to secure equality for its own citizens.", ">\n\nBecause the US has equality on paper more or less, and yet a lot of people are still struggling. I want something near economic equity because I don't want people to suffer, and we should help those who can't help themselves, my problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.", ">\n\n\nmy problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.\n\nnobody's doing that, you only think they are because you don't want to acknowledge the effect racism has on opportunities for minorities, and keep desperately trying to claim its all purely based on racial backgrounds as if that's the only factor.", ">\n\nUmm wtf. Trevor Noah grew up very poor in apartheid South Africa. If you are trying to come up with some poster child for people raised with a silver spoon in their mouth and never discriminated on based on his race he is not it.", ">\n\nIt’s because you can’t erase bias in humans, and in all of these programs humans are decision makers. When you have group A in control and they administrate a program, the benefits will skew toward group A because of human nature. It happens subconsciously if not consciously.\nSo if we start from the premise that different races, ethnicities and genders have similar abilities sufficient for similar capacity for achievement, and we observe that groups B, C, etc are disproportionately disadvantaged, the only way to actually address that is to purposefully facilitate a change.\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”, Ibram Kendi says (paraphrasing) that because of this, every policy either explicitly combats racism in this way or it implicitly promotes existing racism by not doing so. It’s a good book.\nThe Cletus comment was pretty lame btw. And biased. For all you know that guy’s IQ is higher than yours.", ">\n\n\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”,\n\nFrom the same author who openly criticised interracial adoption. Opinion disregarded.", ">\n\nI believe what he said is that adopting children of other races doesn’t mean you can’t act racist. It was a bad tweet. It doesn’t have anything to do with this argument.", ">\n\nBut certain races also face verifiable additional hardships due to their race.", ">\n\nCertain races are stuck in certain classes due to systemic racism, but now it’s less about the race and more about being stuck in a class.\nSo let’s focus on helping out people based on class (because that has the highest impact on one’s life).\nIn other words, a rich black person should not be receiving more handouts than a poor white person. Let’s focus on class.", ">\n\nThey don't", ">\n\nThey do though. If a black kid has rich parents but for some odd reason they don't wanna pay for his college tuition, the black kid will have access to far more scholarships than a white kid with poor parents who actually NEEDS the scholarship.", ">\n\n… you realize majority of these scholarships still look At financial need? They don’t just look at race. They aren’t giving them to rich black students, they are giving it to poor black students.", ">\n\nNo, treating everyone equally is racist.", ">\n\nHow?", ">\n\nI dont know but a bunch of people here are arguing for just that :D", ">\n\nIt seems so", ">\n\nYou're looking at equity purely in terms of socioeconomic status, as if the only goal of social equity were to make certain groups wealthier. Instead, social equity is intended to build up certain groups to give them the same opportunity as others. Opportunity to pursue happiness however they want, even if it may not necessarily be socioeconomically advantageous (e.g. working in a prestigious research institution studying quantum particles). \nThis brings me to another point, you don't typically need to add equity to something that already has equity. You don't build a nice kitchen in a house that already has a nice kitchen. You build a nice kitchen in a house that's been neglected and needs its value increased. This concept of equity translates to minority groups that have been systematically neglected, or worse systematically torn down. Poor white people may have a rough life, and I fully sympathize with that, but their poverty is not as a result of a centuries-old system that sought to keep them downtrodden. \nCapitalism does play a role in systematically keeping poor people poor, and this applies to any race, gender identity, or sexual orientation. But we need to also be aware that systemic racism contributes an additional burden on black people, which is why they need additional aid from government and institutions to be able to have the same opportunity as a poor white person.", ">\n\n\nBut we need to also be aware that systemic racism contributes an additional burden on black people, which is why they need additional aid from government and institutions to be able to have the same opportunity as a poor white person.\n\nNo, you need to flush out the systemic racism, instead of adding more systemic racism to the system in the hopes it will compensate the other systemic racism.", ">\n\nAre you honestly arguing that leveling the playing field is racist? \nLet's say you have two poor people in a snowstorm. One of them has a coat and one doesn't. You give a coat to the one who doesn't. Does that mean you're actively harming or margnalizing the other person who already has a coat? Of course not. They're both still poor people, but now they both have a coat with which to survive the elements. Neither one was harmed by you handing over the coat. Neither one will suddenly become wealthy by you handing over the coat. All you did is give the one who didn't have a coat an opportunity.", ">\n\nOkay what would you do if the government started a program to relief proverty and 99% of the recipients were white. Even in centers that were stationed in neighborhoods with a black, Hispanic, Asian, Indian, etc population?", ">\n\nHalt it, investigate everyone responsible, hand out some prison time, do it better next time.", ">\n\nThen would you introduce racial guidelines of would you be willing to let it happen again?\nHistorically that is what's has happen. Like the community reinvestment act.\nThe government aims for a racially neutral program to lift the economy, the program is disproportionately benefits white people even in primarily black areas and no one cares about it until years after the program is discontinued.\nNot saying that programs meant exclusively for black people always work out. Those tend to start strong until an administrative change and then those in charge steal the money put in because the new administrative actively wants it to fail and no one is really going to look into it because it's just happening to black people. Like what happened to Haiti relief or Nixon and most of the desegregation programs.", ">\n\nIt is not handed out by race don't believe the republican propaganda man.", ">\n\nSorry, u/Tryptortoise – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nSorry, u/Lockdanon14 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nAMEN!!", ">\n\nIt might seem that government handouts are given because of race because issues like poverty tend to affect minorities at a disproportionate level compared to white Americans.", ">\n\nI understand where you're coming from, but there are a couple issues with that approach:\n\nAid programs in a capitalist society have a severely limited amount of resources with which to help people, and that amount keeps getting constrained by conservative parties.\nRace does add obstacles to someone's life in addition to those created by poverty level.\n\nRace or ethnicity should be taken into account because of those additional issues, and because you have to prioritize which people to help somehow.\nThey shouldn't be the sole factor, and in fact they never are: Trevor Noah would never qualify for any aid programs in the US today, and he wouldn't have qualified for any either if he'd gone to well-ranked private schools here when he was a child. \nMost aid programs have a much longer list of requirements than just race, ethnicity, or gender: Even the few attempts at reparations or UBI in the US took other factors into account since they didn't want to apply equally to Beyonce as well as a poor single mother.", ">\n\nyup.", ">\n\nI think you’ll find that the largest beneficiaries of college admissions affirmative action are white makes. This is because of the desire for gender parity in universities. Males are admitted to programs they do not qualify for to maintain a 50-50 gender balance. Or as close as possible. Absent this admission preference, competitive universities would be at 70 percent female. \nFinally, racial preferences in admission or other benefits does not signal inferiority. It seeks to address current and historical structural disadvantages. \nYou also might consider sports like golf, tennis and swimming (not to mention, ice hockey, curling, skiing) which all favor white makes over those of other races due to financial and cultural factors. There is also the legacy admissions which are deeply problematic.", ">\n\nSorry, u/Complex_Air8 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nHandouts really shouldn't be given at all, because when no body get anything, the matter of who gets what is dead simple: they don't. Correcting for past injustices with further injustices only creates greater disparity and disunity. Even then, welfare doesn't help to fight poverty. If anything, it prolongs it. I don't think anyone truly benefits from handouts in the long run, not even Cletus. We'd probably be better off just letting people keep what they earn, as that's the most fair and least racist way to go about it." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?", ">\n\nThe difference is that your place of birth or the poverty level of your parents and all the other factors I listed are circumstances surrounding you and your inherent qualities in you like race is.", ">\n\nBut being born into a given race is literally a circumstance of birth conveyed upon you by your parents. What makes race more “inherent” than poverty? And why should we be rendering assistance to things which are merely “circumstantial” as opposed to “inherent”. I’m not sure the distinction is real or important, but to the extent that it is, doesn’t the “inherent” category require more assistance?", ">\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.", ">\n\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \n\nSo you're switching positions? You're saying that we should help based on inherent characteristics but not circumstantial characteristics like poverty, family background, nationality, etc.?\n\nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.\n\nYou've just flipped your whole reasoning. So now you say we should only be helping people with disabilities and not those other categories then?", ">\n\nWe absolutely should help people based on both inherent and circumstantial characteristics that disadvantage them, that was never in contention, the point of the CMV is that skin color is not an inherent disadvantage, to claim it is puts it in the same category as birth defects and mental illnesses, and we shouldn't take it into account when assisting people. \nDo you enjoy purposefully interpreting my every statement in the worst possible light? All this conversation did is reiterate the body of the post, thanks.", ">\n\nThis logic makes no sense. One is not arguing that race is an inherent disadvantage in a physiological manner, but in a social manner. Race is a social construct that is used to group people. In many places, especially America, this social construct has been used to explicitly and implicitly harm these groups throughout history. Thus, one's race is an inherit disadvantage or advantage, not based on physiological differences, but social ones. You basically argue that saying race can be a disadvantage is supporting eugenics, which is far from the truth. \nMany people get frustrated when they feel cheated, but in every class, from dirt poor to filthy rich, non-white individuals face far more challenges in America than white ones. This is a fact. \nFurther, there are little to no government handouts based on race. America has one of the worst social safety nets in the western world, despite the highest GDP per capita in the world. If you are truly concerned about poverty you should look into issues like universal healthcare, changing the way we measure poverty (it is archaic, obsolete and fails many) and wealth inequality (see gini index). Few argue for your so called \"race-based handouts\" unless you're referring to reparations which is not a proposed solution to poverty but a justice initiative. You may be conflating \"handouts\" with affirmative action which aims to address issues created by historical discrimination, racism and segregation in education (and housing among other areas). \nI do not understand the issue with helping a group of people that have far more challenges than others? Slavery was not that long ago. Many older black Americans have grandparents who were slaves, legal discrimination/segregation has only been abolished for 60-70 years. There was still a school in Cleveland, MS segregated until 2016. Redlining was (is?) enforced well after it was banned in 1968. These effects are closer than you think. \nSome quality reading for you to learn why your logic fails: \n\"Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality\" - Oliver & Shapiro \n\"Medical Apartheid\" - Harriet A. Washington\n\"Progress for the Poor\" - Lane Kenworthy\n\"The New Jim Crow\" - Michelle Alexander", ">\n\nI can certainly see your point but why is equity your target and not equality? \nFrom a non-american perspective the answer seems decently simple. Use the money that you would use in handouts to build systems that raise the opportunity people have access to.\nNow only using handout money might not be enough but there are a lot of other places where you can delegate money from. Not the military cuz it secures general global peace(more peaceful now than practically any other period in his history since Pax Romana. \nYou could use the money usually used for foreign aid to help your own citizens. It might sound cynical but the highest priority of any well working nation should be its own people and when a lot of them are struggling then that should take precedence over foreign aid.\nUse all that gathered money to create institutions like NAV( Norwegian system that helps people get jobs and education and they get a monthly allowance that they can live on until they don't need it anymore) \nI'm no politician but surely there are better ways to secure equality for its own citizens.", ">\n\nBecause the US has equality on paper more or less, and yet a lot of people are still struggling. I want something near economic equity because I don't want people to suffer, and we should help those who can't help themselves, my problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.", ">\n\n\nmy problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.\n\nnobody's doing that, you only think they are because you don't want to acknowledge the effect racism has on opportunities for minorities, and keep desperately trying to claim its all purely based on racial backgrounds as if that's the only factor.", ">\n\nUmm wtf. Trevor Noah grew up very poor in apartheid South Africa. If you are trying to come up with some poster child for people raised with a silver spoon in their mouth and never discriminated on based on his race he is not it.", ">\n\nIt’s because you can’t erase bias in humans, and in all of these programs humans are decision makers. When you have group A in control and they administrate a program, the benefits will skew toward group A because of human nature. It happens subconsciously if not consciously.\nSo if we start from the premise that different races, ethnicities and genders have similar abilities sufficient for similar capacity for achievement, and we observe that groups B, C, etc are disproportionately disadvantaged, the only way to actually address that is to purposefully facilitate a change.\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”, Ibram Kendi says (paraphrasing) that because of this, every policy either explicitly combats racism in this way or it implicitly promotes existing racism by not doing so. It’s a good book.\nThe Cletus comment was pretty lame btw. And biased. For all you know that guy’s IQ is higher than yours.", ">\n\n\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”,\n\nFrom the same author who openly criticised interracial adoption. Opinion disregarded.", ">\n\nI believe what he said is that adopting children of other races doesn’t mean you can’t act racist. It was a bad tweet. It doesn’t have anything to do with this argument.", ">\n\nBut certain races also face verifiable additional hardships due to their race.", ">\n\nCertain races are stuck in certain classes due to systemic racism, but now it’s less about the race and more about being stuck in a class.\nSo let’s focus on helping out people based on class (because that has the highest impact on one’s life).\nIn other words, a rich black person should not be receiving more handouts than a poor white person. Let’s focus on class.", ">\n\nThey don't", ">\n\nThey do though. If a black kid has rich parents but for some odd reason they don't wanna pay for his college tuition, the black kid will have access to far more scholarships than a white kid with poor parents who actually NEEDS the scholarship.", ">\n\n… you realize majority of these scholarships still look At financial need? They don’t just look at race. They aren’t giving them to rich black students, they are giving it to poor black students.", ">\n\nNo, treating everyone equally is racist.", ">\n\nHow?", ">\n\nI dont know but a bunch of people here are arguing for just that :D", ">\n\nIt seems so", ">\n\nYou're looking at equity purely in terms of socioeconomic status, as if the only goal of social equity were to make certain groups wealthier. Instead, social equity is intended to build up certain groups to give them the same opportunity as others. Opportunity to pursue happiness however they want, even if it may not necessarily be socioeconomically advantageous (e.g. working in a prestigious research institution studying quantum particles). \nThis brings me to another point, you don't typically need to add equity to something that already has equity. You don't build a nice kitchen in a house that already has a nice kitchen. You build a nice kitchen in a house that's been neglected and needs its value increased. This concept of equity translates to minority groups that have been systematically neglected, or worse systematically torn down. Poor white people may have a rough life, and I fully sympathize with that, but their poverty is not as a result of a centuries-old system that sought to keep them downtrodden. \nCapitalism does play a role in systematically keeping poor people poor, and this applies to any race, gender identity, or sexual orientation. But we need to also be aware that systemic racism contributes an additional burden on black people, which is why they need additional aid from government and institutions to be able to have the same opportunity as a poor white person.", ">\n\n\nBut we need to also be aware that systemic racism contributes an additional burden on black people, which is why they need additional aid from government and institutions to be able to have the same opportunity as a poor white person.\n\nNo, you need to flush out the systemic racism, instead of adding more systemic racism to the system in the hopes it will compensate the other systemic racism.", ">\n\nAre you honestly arguing that leveling the playing field is racist? \nLet's say you have two poor people in a snowstorm. One of them has a coat and one doesn't. You give a coat to the one who doesn't. Does that mean you're actively harming or margnalizing the other person who already has a coat? Of course not. They're both still poor people, but now they both have a coat with which to survive the elements. Neither one was harmed by you handing over the coat. Neither one will suddenly become wealthy by you handing over the coat. All you did is give the one who didn't have a coat an opportunity.", ">\n\nOkay what would you do if the government started a program to relief proverty and 99% of the recipients were white. Even in centers that were stationed in neighborhoods with a black, Hispanic, Asian, Indian, etc population?", ">\n\nHalt it, investigate everyone responsible, hand out some prison time, do it better next time.", ">\n\nThen would you introduce racial guidelines of would you be willing to let it happen again?\nHistorically that is what's has happen. Like the community reinvestment act.\nThe government aims for a racially neutral program to lift the economy, the program is disproportionately benefits white people even in primarily black areas and no one cares about it until years after the program is discontinued.\nNot saying that programs meant exclusively for black people always work out. Those tend to start strong until an administrative change and then those in charge steal the money put in because the new administrative actively wants it to fail and no one is really going to look into it because it's just happening to black people. Like what happened to Haiti relief or Nixon and most of the desegregation programs.", ">\n\nIt is not handed out by race don't believe the republican propaganda man.", ">\n\nSorry, u/Tryptortoise – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nSorry, u/Lockdanon14 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nAMEN!!", ">\n\nIt might seem that government handouts are given because of race because issues like poverty tend to affect minorities at a disproportionate level compared to white Americans.", ">\n\nI understand where you're coming from, but there are a couple issues with that approach:\n\nAid programs in a capitalist society have a severely limited amount of resources with which to help people, and that amount keeps getting constrained by conservative parties.\nRace does add obstacles to someone's life in addition to those created by poverty level.\n\nRace or ethnicity should be taken into account because of those additional issues, and because you have to prioritize which people to help somehow.\nThey shouldn't be the sole factor, and in fact they never are: Trevor Noah would never qualify for any aid programs in the US today, and he wouldn't have qualified for any either if he'd gone to well-ranked private schools here when he was a child. \nMost aid programs have a much longer list of requirements than just race, ethnicity, or gender: Even the few attempts at reparations or UBI in the US took other factors into account since they didn't want to apply equally to Beyonce as well as a poor single mother.", ">\n\nyup.", ">\n\nI think you’ll find that the largest beneficiaries of college admissions affirmative action are white makes. This is because of the desire for gender parity in universities. Males are admitted to programs they do not qualify for to maintain a 50-50 gender balance. Or as close as possible. Absent this admission preference, competitive universities would be at 70 percent female. \nFinally, racial preferences in admission or other benefits does not signal inferiority. It seeks to address current and historical structural disadvantages. \nYou also might consider sports like golf, tennis and swimming (not to mention, ice hockey, curling, skiing) which all favor white makes over those of other races due to financial and cultural factors. There is also the legacy admissions which are deeply problematic.", ">\n\nSorry, u/Complex_Air8 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nHandouts really shouldn't be given at all, because when no body get anything, the matter of who gets what is dead simple: they don't. Correcting for past injustices with further injustices only creates greater disparity and disunity. Even then, welfare doesn't help to fight poverty. If anything, it prolongs it. I don't think anyone truly benefits from handouts in the long run, not even Cletus. We'd probably be better off just letting people keep what they earn, as that's the most fair and least racist way to go about it.", ">\n\n\nEven then, welfare doesn't help to fight poverty. If anything, it prolongs it.\n\nI suppose, in the strictest sense, it does keep poor people alive for longer...." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?", ">\n\nThe difference is that your place of birth or the poverty level of your parents and all the other factors I listed are circumstances surrounding you and your inherent qualities in you like race is.", ">\n\nBut being born into a given race is literally a circumstance of birth conveyed upon you by your parents. What makes race more “inherent” than poverty? And why should we be rendering assistance to things which are merely “circumstantial” as opposed to “inherent”. I’m not sure the distinction is real or important, but to the extent that it is, doesn’t the “inherent” category require more assistance?", ">\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.", ">\n\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \n\nSo you're switching positions? You're saying that we should help based on inherent characteristics but not circumstantial characteristics like poverty, family background, nationality, etc.?\n\nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.\n\nYou've just flipped your whole reasoning. So now you say we should only be helping people with disabilities and not those other categories then?", ">\n\nWe absolutely should help people based on both inherent and circumstantial characteristics that disadvantage them, that was never in contention, the point of the CMV is that skin color is not an inherent disadvantage, to claim it is puts it in the same category as birth defects and mental illnesses, and we shouldn't take it into account when assisting people. \nDo you enjoy purposefully interpreting my every statement in the worst possible light? All this conversation did is reiterate the body of the post, thanks.", ">\n\nThis logic makes no sense. One is not arguing that race is an inherent disadvantage in a physiological manner, but in a social manner. Race is a social construct that is used to group people. In many places, especially America, this social construct has been used to explicitly and implicitly harm these groups throughout history. Thus, one's race is an inherit disadvantage or advantage, not based on physiological differences, but social ones. You basically argue that saying race can be a disadvantage is supporting eugenics, which is far from the truth. \nMany people get frustrated when they feel cheated, but in every class, from dirt poor to filthy rich, non-white individuals face far more challenges in America than white ones. This is a fact. \nFurther, there are little to no government handouts based on race. America has one of the worst social safety nets in the western world, despite the highest GDP per capita in the world. If you are truly concerned about poverty you should look into issues like universal healthcare, changing the way we measure poverty (it is archaic, obsolete and fails many) and wealth inequality (see gini index). Few argue for your so called \"race-based handouts\" unless you're referring to reparations which is not a proposed solution to poverty but a justice initiative. You may be conflating \"handouts\" with affirmative action which aims to address issues created by historical discrimination, racism and segregation in education (and housing among other areas). \nI do not understand the issue with helping a group of people that have far more challenges than others? Slavery was not that long ago. Many older black Americans have grandparents who were slaves, legal discrimination/segregation has only been abolished for 60-70 years. There was still a school in Cleveland, MS segregated until 2016. Redlining was (is?) enforced well after it was banned in 1968. These effects are closer than you think. \nSome quality reading for you to learn why your logic fails: \n\"Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality\" - Oliver & Shapiro \n\"Medical Apartheid\" - Harriet A. Washington\n\"Progress for the Poor\" - Lane Kenworthy\n\"The New Jim Crow\" - Michelle Alexander", ">\n\nI can certainly see your point but why is equity your target and not equality? \nFrom a non-american perspective the answer seems decently simple. Use the money that you would use in handouts to build systems that raise the opportunity people have access to.\nNow only using handout money might not be enough but there are a lot of other places where you can delegate money from. Not the military cuz it secures general global peace(more peaceful now than practically any other period in his history since Pax Romana. \nYou could use the money usually used for foreign aid to help your own citizens. It might sound cynical but the highest priority of any well working nation should be its own people and when a lot of them are struggling then that should take precedence over foreign aid.\nUse all that gathered money to create institutions like NAV( Norwegian system that helps people get jobs and education and they get a monthly allowance that they can live on until they don't need it anymore) \nI'm no politician but surely there are better ways to secure equality for its own citizens.", ">\n\nBecause the US has equality on paper more or less, and yet a lot of people are still struggling. I want something near economic equity because I don't want people to suffer, and we should help those who can't help themselves, my problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.", ">\n\n\nmy problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.\n\nnobody's doing that, you only think they are because you don't want to acknowledge the effect racism has on opportunities for minorities, and keep desperately trying to claim its all purely based on racial backgrounds as if that's the only factor.", ">\n\nUmm wtf. Trevor Noah grew up very poor in apartheid South Africa. If you are trying to come up with some poster child for people raised with a silver spoon in their mouth and never discriminated on based on his race he is not it.", ">\n\nIt’s because you can’t erase bias in humans, and in all of these programs humans are decision makers. When you have group A in control and they administrate a program, the benefits will skew toward group A because of human nature. It happens subconsciously if not consciously.\nSo if we start from the premise that different races, ethnicities and genders have similar abilities sufficient for similar capacity for achievement, and we observe that groups B, C, etc are disproportionately disadvantaged, the only way to actually address that is to purposefully facilitate a change.\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”, Ibram Kendi says (paraphrasing) that because of this, every policy either explicitly combats racism in this way or it implicitly promotes existing racism by not doing so. It’s a good book.\nThe Cletus comment was pretty lame btw. And biased. For all you know that guy’s IQ is higher than yours.", ">\n\n\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”,\n\nFrom the same author who openly criticised interracial adoption. Opinion disregarded.", ">\n\nI believe what he said is that adopting children of other races doesn’t mean you can’t act racist. It was a bad tweet. It doesn’t have anything to do with this argument.", ">\n\nBut certain races also face verifiable additional hardships due to their race.", ">\n\nCertain races are stuck in certain classes due to systemic racism, but now it’s less about the race and more about being stuck in a class.\nSo let’s focus on helping out people based on class (because that has the highest impact on one’s life).\nIn other words, a rich black person should not be receiving more handouts than a poor white person. Let’s focus on class.", ">\n\nThey don't", ">\n\nThey do though. If a black kid has rich parents but for some odd reason they don't wanna pay for his college tuition, the black kid will have access to far more scholarships than a white kid with poor parents who actually NEEDS the scholarship.", ">\n\n… you realize majority of these scholarships still look At financial need? They don’t just look at race. They aren’t giving them to rich black students, they are giving it to poor black students.", ">\n\nNo, treating everyone equally is racist.", ">\n\nHow?", ">\n\nI dont know but a bunch of people here are arguing for just that :D", ">\n\nIt seems so", ">\n\nYou're looking at equity purely in terms of socioeconomic status, as if the only goal of social equity were to make certain groups wealthier. Instead, social equity is intended to build up certain groups to give them the same opportunity as others. Opportunity to pursue happiness however they want, even if it may not necessarily be socioeconomically advantageous (e.g. working in a prestigious research institution studying quantum particles). \nThis brings me to another point, you don't typically need to add equity to something that already has equity. You don't build a nice kitchen in a house that already has a nice kitchen. You build a nice kitchen in a house that's been neglected and needs its value increased. This concept of equity translates to minority groups that have been systematically neglected, or worse systematically torn down. Poor white people may have a rough life, and I fully sympathize with that, but their poverty is not as a result of a centuries-old system that sought to keep them downtrodden. \nCapitalism does play a role in systematically keeping poor people poor, and this applies to any race, gender identity, or sexual orientation. But we need to also be aware that systemic racism contributes an additional burden on black people, which is why they need additional aid from government and institutions to be able to have the same opportunity as a poor white person.", ">\n\n\nBut we need to also be aware that systemic racism contributes an additional burden on black people, which is why they need additional aid from government and institutions to be able to have the same opportunity as a poor white person.\n\nNo, you need to flush out the systemic racism, instead of adding more systemic racism to the system in the hopes it will compensate the other systemic racism.", ">\n\nAre you honestly arguing that leveling the playing field is racist? \nLet's say you have two poor people in a snowstorm. One of them has a coat and one doesn't. You give a coat to the one who doesn't. Does that mean you're actively harming or margnalizing the other person who already has a coat? Of course not. They're both still poor people, but now they both have a coat with which to survive the elements. Neither one was harmed by you handing over the coat. Neither one will suddenly become wealthy by you handing over the coat. All you did is give the one who didn't have a coat an opportunity.", ">\n\nOkay what would you do if the government started a program to relief proverty and 99% of the recipients were white. Even in centers that were stationed in neighborhoods with a black, Hispanic, Asian, Indian, etc population?", ">\n\nHalt it, investigate everyone responsible, hand out some prison time, do it better next time.", ">\n\nThen would you introduce racial guidelines of would you be willing to let it happen again?\nHistorically that is what's has happen. Like the community reinvestment act.\nThe government aims for a racially neutral program to lift the economy, the program is disproportionately benefits white people even in primarily black areas and no one cares about it until years after the program is discontinued.\nNot saying that programs meant exclusively for black people always work out. Those tend to start strong until an administrative change and then those in charge steal the money put in because the new administrative actively wants it to fail and no one is really going to look into it because it's just happening to black people. Like what happened to Haiti relief or Nixon and most of the desegregation programs.", ">\n\nIt is not handed out by race don't believe the republican propaganda man.", ">\n\nSorry, u/Tryptortoise – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nSorry, u/Lockdanon14 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nAMEN!!", ">\n\nIt might seem that government handouts are given because of race because issues like poverty tend to affect minorities at a disproportionate level compared to white Americans.", ">\n\nI understand where you're coming from, but there are a couple issues with that approach:\n\nAid programs in a capitalist society have a severely limited amount of resources with which to help people, and that amount keeps getting constrained by conservative parties.\nRace does add obstacles to someone's life in addition to those created by poverty level.\n\nRace or ethnicity should be taken into account because of those additional issues, and because you have to prioritize which people to help somehow.\nThey shouldn't be the sole factor, and in fact they never are: Trevor Noah would never qualify for any aid programs in the US today, and he wouldn't have qualified for any either if he'd gone to well-ranked private schools here when he was a child. \nMost aid programs have a much longer list of requirements than just race, ethnicity, or gender: Even the few attempts at reparations or UBI in the US took other factors into account since they didn't want to apply equally to Beyonce as well as a poor single mother.", ">\n\nyup.", ">\n\nI think you’ll find that the largest beneficiaries of college admissions affirmative action are white makes. This is because of the desire for gender parity in universities. Males are admitted to programs they do not qualify for to maintain a 50-50 gender balance. Or as close as possible. Absent this admission preference, competitive universities would be at 70 percent female. \nFinally, racial preferences in admission or other benefits does not signal inferiority. It seeks to address current and historical structural disadvantages. \nYou also might consider sports like golf, tennis and swimming (not to mention, ice hockey, curling, skiing) which all favor white makes over those of other races due to financial and cultural factors. There is also the legacy admissions which are deeply problematic.", ">\n\nSorry, u/Complex_Air8 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nHandouts really shouldn't be given at all, because when no body get anything, the matter of who gets what is dead simple: they don't. Correcting for past injustices with further injustices only creates greater disparity and disunity. Even then, welfare doesn't help to fight poverty. If anything, it prolongs it. I don't think anyone truly benefits from handouts in the long run, not even Cletus. We'd probably be better off just letting people keep what they earn, as that's the most fair and least racist way to go about it.", ">\n\n\nEven then, welfare doesn't help to fight poverty. If anything, it prolongs it.\n\nI suppose, in the strictest sense, it does keep poor people alive for longer....", ">\n\nYou say \"handouts\" as if they are gifts, when the reality is we are talking about recompense. Let's say the state, either through incompetence or actual malice against you specifically, bulldozed your house one day. The state has wronged you and now has an obligation to make you whole. You wouldn't tolerate someone coming around and saying, \"we don't need to to give money to Viceroy1994 specifically, we just need to create a program to help all homeless people.\" Or worse \"Viceroy1994 managed to not be poor despite the state bulldozing his house, so we don't need to compensate him.\"\nBoth of those are nonsense. The state wronged you and it can't make compensating you hinge on passing some program to help others. It can't decide you aren't poor enough so you don't actually need recompense. When the state wrongs a person, or a group of people I needs to make them whole. Even if the state has kicked the can down the road for decades. The obligation is still there." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race.", ">\n\nStats on black lawyers being less employed than white lawyers?", ">\n\n(Reuters) - Two-thirds of Black students who graduated law school last year landed jobs within 10 months that required passing the bar exam, compared to 81% of white law grads, according to new data from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP).\nAs a result of racial disparities in hiring, retention, and promotion, African Americans continued to be underrepresented in the corporate bar. Wilkins and Gulati observed that law firms' discriminatory practices “pervade[d] not only elite firms, but the entire legal profession.”", ">\n\nWhat law schools are black students overrepresented at?", ">\n\nNowhere, I think. How is this relevant? The first article is about black GRADUATES having less of a chance on the job market than white graduates. The second article is a summary of an academic study conluding that \"all else being equal, Black lawyers are pushed out of private law firms at much higher rates than white lawyers.\"", ">\n\nIf black students are overrepresented at lower quality law schools, bar passage and employment opportunity being lower makes sense? Huge difference between Harvard and Pace", ">\n\nGenerally, handouts are given based on poverty level. It might seem that handouts are given out \"by race', but this is because poverty affects minorities substantially more than the average person. Virtually every study on the matter proves this. As such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.", ">\n\n\nAs such, even if handouts were given by race, they would still be given to most of the same people.\n\nThat's precisely my point, stop giving or demanding handouts or government assistance based on race (Which is still happening in the US) and instead do it by social class, you'd get more or less the same result with less unfairness.", ">\n\nWho is demanding government handouts by race? And which government handouts are given as a function of race?", ">\n\nAre you reading this thread? As for your second question I can't think of any, but I do have an issue with them being demanded.", ">\n\nSo there aren't government handouts by race as you have no evidence to provide as much. \nNow back to demands, who, specifically, is asking for government handouts by race?", ">\n\nWould the people not asking for slavery reparations not be classed as people asking for government handouts based on race?", ">\n\nNo. Reparations are an act to correct past wrongs. They are not a social safety net that people generally refer to when talking about government handouts.\nYes, it would literally be money coming from the government, but it's not the general intention in the discussion nor would it be an ongoing action.", ">\n\nI suppose I interpreted \"government handout\" to mean money coming from the government at all, regardless of the causal factors behind it. And if that money is based on race, it would be government handouts based on race. \nI'm not sure how useful it is to differentiate between the reasons why the government is handing money out, when the cmv is about handing money out based on race.", ">\n\nBecause reparations wouldn't be money handed out based on race. It would be money handed out to the descendants of those who had incredible atrocities committed to them. The fact that the victims were all of one race is due to the actions of the past.\nWhereas this CMV seems to be more about race oriented laws.", ">\n\nThe ruling class poisons the well by simply throwing identity politics at something. It creates the divisive rift that they want and destroys progress on popular communist/ socialist causes. Class politics and real solutions to these issues are off limits. The goal is to pin people on each other, and shift blame away from the ruling class. The ruling class should absolutely do this for themselves. It’s a genius move. They have think tanks for a reason. It’s the best thing for them to prop up the idea that handouts should be based on race because it destroys the entire notion. This is the system we have and it should be this way if we fall for the identity politics trap every time.", ">\n\nAnd handouts ARE given on the amount of income you have. As a white person who gets social services I can attest to that. Everyone who applies and meets the criteria gets help. I constantly hear white people complain about themselves being victims but they are really saying, I want a bigger share for me!!!!", ">\n\nSource on this? You seem to have jumped a few steps to reach that conclusion..", ">\n\n\"The payout from a class action lawsuit should be given to poor people, not the victims of the crime.\"\nThese efforts are meant to address specific past wrongs. Generic poverty is a separate matter entirely.", ">\n\nLegislation should be about justice, not revenge. A black person born in the US isn't born a victim of slavery, not more so than a Jewish American. The last thing we want is for people to be punished or rewarded for the actions of their ancestors.", ">\n\nIf a man's brother stole his inheritance, meaning he and his family grew up in poverty, then the children are in fact victims of that wrong.\nThey weren't stolen from, in one sense, but in another more meaningful sense they were.", ">\n\nThe bigger injustice is that it's apparently not possible to be prosperous without inheritance.\nBut OP clearly said it shouldn't be race-based. It can still be based on specific crimes against specific persons.", ">\n\nAt a certain point, insisting on focusing only on specific instances is a choice to deliberately ignore larger trends.", ">\n\nSo, we're going to give extra handouts to Cosby, Oprah, and Tiger Woods, while ignoring the white homeless under the bridge? That money will be misdirected.\nMoreover, it will just breed resentment and increase the problem if you for example tried to deal with eg. Alabama by selectively handing out boons to black families, while ignoring the white trash in the same area with similar or worse living situations.\nNot to mention that the selection process would be very racist in itself: you're still labelling people based on how they look, with a color chart next to their photograph.", ">\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them or their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back? Does the money necessarily have to come from poor white people or is that just a claim you are making.", ">\n\n\nIf Cosby, Oprah and Tiger Woods had things stolen from them \n\nIf you know of any specific crime to specific persons done by specific persons, the courts can and will deal with that.\nThat's not what is being discussed referred to - it's a generic benefit based on color to compensate for a generic disadvantage based on color.\n\nor their ancestors why wouldn't you pay them back?\n\nPeople are not guilty of the crimes done by their ancestors. The idea that people of the same color are somehow part of the same hivemind and collectively responsible for what one of them does, is deeply racist.", ">\n\n\nI propose that the same justification would work on gender and sexual minorities as well.\n\nI think you're mostly right but there are exceptions regarding sex, for example maternity pay for women taking time off work after childbirth, not just to look after the newborn baby but also to recover after what is an incredibly strenuous experience. Unlike women who adopt or are the non-birthing partner in a same-sex couple, who may still have the capacity for childbirth and chose otherwise, men can't give birth at all and therefore would never need that recovery time, so may be eligible for slightly fewer allowances relating to time off work to spend time with their newborn.", ">\n\nI'd argue that paternity leave is necessary for a few reasons. It's great for the mom to have help around the house and with the new baby while recovering from a very intensive experience. Paternity leave reduces stress on the mom and contributes to more equal households. Most importantly, paternity leave helps fathers and their children bond better.", ">\n\nDefinitely agree with this. And I think parental leave in general should be more generous than it is in most countries. Though many European ones tend to do better than most.", ">\n\nAnother advantage to having equally generous paternity leave is that it helps reduce sex discrimination in employment. If child-bearing-age women are more likely to take long leaves from work than their male counterparts, then it reduces the incentive to hire them. If men and women get the same leave for having children, then there is less of an incentive to avoid hiring women.", ">\n\nThat is a good, pragmatic point. Though it would be better if this unique, essential and significant role that women have in actually creating the next generation of humanity was honoured and celebrated on its own terms, rather than being seen as an unprofitable burden to be mitigated.", ">\n\nI would say the best argument against this is that it doesn't go far enough; you're right that racially defined policies create backlash and fail to help some who need it, but the reality is that poverty focused policies will have similar problems, for different reasons. \nThe better solution by far is to institute something like a UBI - no possibility for systemic discrimination in distribution, and no one gets to feel like someone is unfairly being helped more than they are.", ">\n\nThat's not absurd, but I sort of doubt that the people who oppose helping the poor will support UBI.", ">\n\nTrever Noah grew up during apartheid.\nSure he's mixed, but apartheid wasn't something that inherently prevented any bad effects so long as you had one white parent.\nHe absolutely grew up in one of the most disadvantaged positions in the entire world, save for those with darker skin than he.\nDoes he not deserve to have a greater chance of getting into a decent school because he made it? Because he's successful now, that means he always would have been successful if people didn't specifically work to right the wrongs of society?\nTrevor isn't from America, his ancestry isn't linked to slave trade in the US, but only looking for people to raise up due to issues of poverty largely ignores the circumstances that people find them in.\nThe most equitable way, other than providing free college around the world, would be to assist people based on individual need rather than solely on one aspect of life.\nAnd, people's individual need can be impacted by where they are due to aspects of race--particularly in America.\nThe issues of slavery and racism were never fixed and everything else that has been done was ultimately a bandaid. But a bandaid is better than a festering wound.", ">\n\nSlavery was never fixed? Do we still have black slavers in America still? Your statement that “the issue of slavery and racism were never fixed” is untrue. America has made great strides. Slavery is illegal and racism is less prevalent (you will always have racist people on all sides).", ">\n\nSlavery is legal under the 13th amendment, states are just now rectifying this--but federally that isn't true.\nAmerica has made great strides, but slavery and the effects of slavery are very much alive", ">\n\nIf you have X eligibility, you’re automatically qualified for Y. If you’re not, then good (no) luck. The middle class is struggling, too. Where I live, it now costs $4,000/month to rent a 3bd/1.5ba condo. How can many even in the middle class afford that? Yet the poverty cutoff remains stagnant.", ">\n\nBum-fuck nowhere. I immediately picture \"that\" scene in the movie Deliverance. Ugh, thanks a lot.", ">\n\nThe problem with this view is that it dismisses the social factors, like race, that feed into poverty. Black Americans are more likely to be poor. This is because of various systems designed to deny the black community the accrual of generational wealth. Look at redlining - for years black Americans were denied mortgages for homes in white majority neighborhoods while the homes they were approved to buy were consistently undervalued. Even today, there are countless stories of appraisers valuing homes very differently depending on the race of the owner trying to sell. This disparity means that it’s not a simple issue of money but rather which parts of the field need to be leveled to achieve equity.", ">\n\n\"Racism is a huge problem! Let's work on it. Any ideas?\"\n\"Let's offer loans/benefits/handouts, but only to people with the right color skin!\" \n\"Um, aren't we trying to STOP being racists? Just asking since that's one of the most blatantly racist things I've ever heard...\" \n\"YOU'RE A RACIST! You don't want to use skin color to decide whether or not someone qualifies for assistance so you must be a huge racist!\" \n\"Wtf...\"", ">\n\n$6.15 trillion is a little steep, basing hourly pay at $15 an hour would be an inaccurate repayment basis. inflation adjusted that's what a doctor made back in the 1860s. An average laborer in 1860 made around $7 per week or close to 15 cent an hour. Inflation adjusted that would be around $6 an hour today. That data on the 10 million slaves starts in 1660, 116 years before the United States existed, don't know if goverment reparations should start before there was a government. The work of African ancestors did get their descendents citizenship of the United States, that should be taken into account, indentured servants from Europe slaved 4-6 years for it. I understand that Slaves didn't come willingly, but since the majority were purchased after being captured by opposing tribes in Africa their other option was most likely death. Without slavery many of the African bloodlines alive in the US today would have been extinguished as casualties of tribal warfare. Don't know how to factor that into pay or reparations. If anyone in the US today owes reparations it's the descendants of slave owners, not every white family benefited from slavery. True privilege is being born into a family with generational wealth, which slavery did help provide for a very small percentage of the population. I think it would be completely fair to seek out the families that benefited from slave labor and let them be responsible for a portion of reparations. My family didn't come to the US until the 1900s, I don't feel like I owe any slave decendant any form or reparation. But I strongly feel that descendants of planation owners who still benefit today from the free labor their ancestors aquired, well not technically \"free\" slaves were inflation adjusted ~$100k investment each. Reparations are due, maybe the descendants of slave traders should be held partially accountable, maybe the descendants of the tribal leaders in Africa that originally captured and sold them. It's all very complicated, just tallying up hours over 200 years of estimated labor, and slapping a modern day hourly wage on it should not be the formula to calculate reparations.", ">\n\nI'm not claiming to have accurate figures or any real solutions whatsoever. I'm just changing the framing from \"handouts\" to unpaid wages. \nRegardless, and slightly off topic, the prosperity of this nation was built on the back of slave labor, African or otherwise. Slavery that happened before the founding created the wealth used for the founding so I'd say there's still some responsibility even if there was a name change. The US has spent at least $300B per year on our military budget since the 90s. While the military is important to our national interests, if we were to reallocate a fraction of that towards some sort of meaningful reparations to SOMEBODY then many of these animosities would be alleviated in the coming generations. It could honestly be seen as national defense spending as it's known that our racial tensions are a weak spot in our national unity and those tensions have been alleged to have been exploited by outside propaganda campaigns. \nWe've got the money, we've got the means, we just don't have the priority for some reason. Imagine if those wages had just been paid on time to free workers or invested completely into those cultural communities right after the civil war. I would think that much of our nation's racial animosity or tension would be a thing of the past and everybody would be able to engage with the American dream without the baggage.", ">\n\nWe, as a country, are more than $30 trillion in debt. Under no circumstances do we \"have the money\"", ">\n\nAgain, I'm not here to argue the nitty gritty of solutions or economics. Just looking to reframe \"handouts\" as returned stolen wages and making up for denied economic prosperity. \nThat's said, \"I stole the money, spent the money, and spent even more money. I'm broke now, sorry!\" is a poor reason to avoid doing the right thing. Also, spending $300B/yr on our military shows that we CAN generate and allocate vast sums of money. We just choose not to prioritize using that money to right our national wrongdoings.", ">\n\nBut it's not returning wages, because the person benefitting is not the person who was actually harmed. Further, you are not taking those funds from the people who committed a deed, but from the general population. \nSo, your taking from someone who has done no specific wrong and giving it to someone who has not suffered a specific, concrete wrong. That's 2 wrongs, and it doesn't make a right. \nBy the way, that $300 billion you site is significantly smaller than the approximately $1.3 trillion that our government redistributes already.", ">\n\nSo a couple hundred years of slavery, hundred some years of institutional and totally legal discrimination, redlining and continued housing discrimination, overpolicing of certain neighborhoods, etc, is without harm? So much has been taken from these communities and the best we can do is government housing and a scholarship here and there?\nAs for the people paying for it, the prosperity of this nation was built on slave labor and we all benefit from that. Some more than others.\nSo we're looking at two separate yet simultaneous systems. In one system things are taken from you and you have no recourse to be made whole and neither do the people who would inherit that. In the other system I can take everything from you and multiple other people and then give that to my children, who did not earn it. \nThere are ways to rectify this, but giving up on doing the right thing because it's expensive or unfair is a cop out. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hundreds of years of immoral and heinous wrongs done to millions of people also does not make a right.", ">\n\nArguing that a wrong happened in the past and therefore I deserve this in the present is terrible. Every group has been wronged at some point in time. Should Germany be paying for all the ills of World War 2? What about the British for their colonization? Maybe Rome owes reparations to Carthage too. But once you go down that path, there is no logical reason to stop after any particular group. \nFace it, you want something for nothing. You want to be owed, to take credit for any benefits that could, however tangentially, be related to someone in your distant pass. Spin that however you want, you don't want things made fair, you want the best possible results with absolutely no work, and that isn't fair to both the people you want to have benefit and those you want to leave holding the bill.", ">\n\nI think the issue with this conversation in general is that everything is labeled as a “handout”. \nWhile I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think starting there doesn’t allow for a good conversation for race vs poverty level “handouts”. Meaning which ones might be specific to race and which ones might be specific to poverty level.", ">\n\nYou're looking at these things as some sort of merit-based system, when they just aren't.\nTake college admissions, for example, since that's usually where this issue is brought up. What determines if you get into a school? Well... the admissions department determines that. Their goal is to create a student body that will provide value to the students, and that value could be societal: students might decide that a school that creates its student body to maximize the benefit to society is a good school to attend. What it isn't is a meritocracy. You don't get into a school because you \"deserve\" to. You're not really owed anything.\nSo, you have one of these communities where college attendance is very low, and a member of that community applies to your college. If you accept that member, you'll do a kind of double whammy: first, you'll help that community raise its average education level, as other people in the community will see this person going to college and realize that they too can do that, and also, you'll have that community member on campus, making friends with people from other communities and making other members of that community feel more welcome. So now, if you're another member of that community considering college, you'll know someone who went and you'll know that you won't be the only member of your community there so you won't be alone. But at the same time, you need to consider if this community member will actually be a hindrance to the student body in other ways. If you have a high standard of academic achievement, someone who doesn't meet it will feel alienated, and their presence in classes will force the class to go slower to fit their needs, not to mention that they won't be as productive in conversations. So you weigh those potential negatives against the potential positives. Of course, sometimes it's a no-brainer; the person would obviously fit in quite well. Other times, you might need to prioritize the needs of the community and accept someone whom you might not otherwise accept due to these benefits to the student body as a whole. Still other times, the applicant simply won't fit and you have to move on.\nEveryone has something to contribute, and for some people, one of their contributions is their membership in a marginalized community. That shouldn't be treated differently than other contributions, but it sure sounds like racism to conservatives, doesn't it?", ">\n\nYour entire argument rests on the idea that there's a benefit to including someone for no reason other being part of a marginalized community. I posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit. More often than not it's a detriment as you mentioned in your post of the class going slower or the applicant feeling alienated.", ">\n\n\nI posit that that provides no inherent value and is of 0 benefit.\n\nThat is demonstrably false. Like, it's not even a tiny little bit true. It's just 100% wrong.\nOf course having diversity in the student body is good for students. I went to college; I benefited from the diversity. And I went to a college where there were, let's say, a lot of very privileged students (far more privileged than me, at any rate), who would likely never interact with people from marginalized communities without this diversity in the student body. They'd grow up to be those morons that tell people speaking a non-English language at the store to \"speak English, this is America!!!1\", or they'd have these crazy paternalistic views of white saviors in Africa or whatever, instead of seeing real people as real people.\nAnd that's not mentioning the effect of education on the communities themselves. You give people an education, those people then serve as role models for their communities. Little kids look up to them and see what they've done, and they see what kind of life they can have if they pay attention to their education. This is obviously a benefit, unless you think these communities should just shut up and die already or whatever, in which case, 1930's Germany would love to have you back.\n\nthe applicant feeling alienated\n\nNot if you have enough to form a community at the school.\n\nthe class going slower\n\nObviously you can't compromise too much in pursuit of social change and properly educating sheltered kids, but there's always going to be a balance. The thing is, students from marginalized communities are going to be just about as smart as their rich-ass peers, if not smarter, but their lack of educational opportunity as children puts them behind in actual achievement. Your kid's not going to be a clarinet prodigy if neither you nor her school can afford a clarinet, not to mention reeds, lessons, etc. Your kid's not going to be a math genius if you didn't learn math in school, your partner didn't learn math in school (if your partner is even in the picture), and nobody in the community is around to teach your kid at an early age. (I was never a clarinet prodigy, but I was winning national math competitions, and it's thanks to my parents and my grandfather who were always teaching me math from when I was a toddler, something I'm now trying to do with my kids as much as possible.) So in admissions, you consider this difference in achievement, and you understand that giving one kid an education will give new life to future generations.\n0 benefit, no idea where you pulled that one from.", ">\n\nSorry, u/thepuhenbasharma – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nIt’s not either or, it should be both. But guess what? The larger percentage of poorer people are black in the US.", ">\n\nIt definitely shouldn't be both. \nWe can't promote people to not judge others based on their race and then make governmental legislation based on a person's race. \nIt is simple and illogical.", ">\n\nJust wanted to point out that Trevor Noah had a very rough child hood. He grew up in a single parent household with the help of his grandparents. He did gainxa step father at some point who beat him and his mom. His step father also shot his mother, which she barely survived. Oh... and he got a slap on the wrist because \"she must have done something\". As a teenager he learned to hussle stolen goods (he didn't steal them, but did buy them cheap), and leverage other people's job access to get discounted goods. He networked the slums to figure out what everyone needed, and connected the dots to make his sales. He also ran a bootleg music business because he was one of the few people in the early 2000's with the knowhow.\nHe's someone who absolutely should have been given priority due to his socioeconomic status.", ">\n\nA few issues I would suggest.\nFirstly I would argue these are not handouts in the sense handouts are usually thought of, ot at all. Let's say a company screws over its employees by having them work with chemicals it knows have dangerous intergenerational side effects. It causes cancer in those who work with it and birth defects in their children and potentially grandchildren.\nIf that company is sued and has to pay 1.3 million to each family who had a member working under these conditions this is not a handout, it is an attempt at some form of justice.\nLet's say 5% of those families who receive their 1.3 million were actually already independently wealthy as they had started their own successful businesses since then. They still get their money anyway because it's not saying \"you don't have much money, so here is some help\", it's saying \"these people fucked you over, now we are making them pay something to you for it\".\nThere is such a thing as intergenerational trauma. It can sound like a silly buzzword, but it's actually a pretty simple well demonstrated fact. When people go through severe trauma, say during a war, this causes psychological harm which means this group, on average, have more mental health issues, more substance abuse issues and so on. This of course, on average, then affects parenting style. The behaviours of the parents then effect the psychological makeup of the children as well. This can run for multiple generations.\nSo the first argument I would make is that, in poverty or not, people should, in principle, be compensated for being intergenerationally fucked over by a company, government, other individual etc.\nThe second argument I would make is that multiple things can be true at once. You should also be trying to create societies with as little poverty as possible. Getting people out of poverty should NOT be based on race, or in fact on anything but poverty.\nAs it happens there tends to be more poverty in black communities due to a mixture of factors. \nThe first is the overtly discriminatory laws and rules that were put in place well into the 60s, and that different variants of had existed for a few hundred years. Not treating people legally equally meant several groups were highly disadvantaged based on race.\nThen there are the intergenerational trauma issues and the psychological issues that are well documented to be caused by poverty. These also mean more black people in poverty, as a percent of their race.\nMy third argument would be that reversing a policy that was discriminating based on race is attempting to undo that issue, as far as possible. This doesn't make it \"more racism\".\nExample. Let's say you have a religious group, any will do, and this group for a couple of hundred years was banned from having property, was given greatly reduced wages, was banned from being educated in certain ways, could generally be beaten, raped, tortured etc with little chance of the perpetrators being punished. 250 years after this started, and around 60 years after a large amount of it was stopped, and with some of it still continuing now in subtler forms such as this group still getting longer prison sentences for the same crimes etc, it is decided to try and reverse the effect of these crimes by giving these people some degree of the wealth they were deliberately stopped from accumulating.\nThis isn't favouring that religious group, this is just going some part of the way to undoing the way they were disfavoured to put them at about the same social location as everyone else. It's setting them back on a equal keel, or as close as reasonably possible.\nI would say if you are African American but your family moved to the USA in the 80s you are not entitled to this. Your family was not hit by all this historical stuff. Of course you are entitled to push back against any racism that exists now.\nSo is it based on race? In a sense no. It's based on if you or your recent relatives were fucked over badly by a government and much of a nation's people for hundreds of years, in such a way that the effects can still clearly be seen in many of your social issues in inequalities now. The only reason for this having the racial element is because the people who did the fucking over chose race as the factor it was to be based on.\nWhilst this is all going on white people, and people in every other race, should be getting assistance if they are struggling with mental health, if all of the industry in their area collapses, if they were fucked over by a company they work for etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Should this be done by actual handouts, by a decent minimum wage, by changes to the economy, by changes to tax systems etc? Well exactly how all of these things are done involved lots of questions and specifics, and those are another debate.\nThe short version. If your family is overtly fucked over by the government and corporations in such a way it greatly effects you, your kids, your grand kids, their opportunities, wealth, social mobility etc, then this should be undone as far as possible. If the criteria for the fucking over, chosen by the people who did the fucking over, is if your are black or not, then the undoing is going to share this characteristic as well, but that's on the people who chose it to begin with.\nThis isn't intended to address everything you mention, mostly some of the financial side for now, as opposed to educational opportunities etc.", ">\n\nLynchings shouldn't have been handed out based on race either, but here we are in the USA with a nasty history of racial lynchings. You want a perfect world where race doesn't matter? That's great. Now you gotta *create\" a perfect world where race doesn't matter. Ignoring history with colorblind policies is not being anti-racist, it's just a goddamn cover-up for crimes committed.", ">\n\nI assume lynchings disproportionately affect black people, but they were far from the only victims of it. Be that as it may, why are hundred year old grievances relevant to this discussion?", ">\n\nThe last reported lynching of a black man in the USA was committed by KKK members in 1981, and lynchings were widespread from 1882 up until 1968, so not \"hundred year old grievances\" really, your grandparents and your parents were alive when were lynchings were still a thing.", ">\n\n\nNow if we want all people to be on an equitable or near equitable level, there are so many things we can adjust for: Poverty level, upbringing, intelligence level, geographic location, etc. Race is not one of them, to posit that race is a factor would imply that racial minorities are inherently inferior to white people, and not in a worst standing due to circumstance.\n\nI don’t understand your logic here. Are you saying that poor people are inherently inferior to rich people? That people born in a foreign country are inherently inferior to those born domestically? Why are you signaling race out for that logic?", ">\n\nThe difference is that your place of birth or the poverty level of your parents and all the other factors I listed are circumstances surrounding you and your inherent qualities in you like race is.", ">\n\nBut being born into a given race is literally a circumstance of birth conveyed upon you by your parents. What makes race more “inherent” than poverty? And why should we be rendering assistance to things which are merely “circumstantial” as opposed to “inherent”. I’m not sure the distinction is real or important, but to the extent that it is, doesn’t the “inherent” category require more assistance?", ">\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.", ">\n\n\nWe should give people assistance based on inherent characteristics, for example birth defects, disabilities, mental illnesses, etc. Now do you see the problem with including race in that camp? \n\nSo you're switching positions? You're saying that we should help based on inherent characteristics but not circumstantial characteristics like poverty, family background, nationality, etc.?\n\nA black person is not inherently less capable than a white person in the same way a person with a crippling birth defect is inherently less capable than a person without any disabilities.\n\nYou've just flipped your whole reasoning. So now you say we should only be helping people with disabilities and not those other categories then?", ">\n\nWe absolutely should help people based on both inherent and circumstantial characteristics that disadvantage them, that was never in contention, the point of the CMV is that skin color is not an inherent disadvantage, to claim it is puts it in the same category as birth defects and mental illnesses, and we shouldn't take it into account when assisting people. \nDo you enjoy purposefully interpreting my every statement in the worst possible light? All this conversation did is reiterate the body of the post, thanks.", ">\n\nThis logic makes no sense. One is not arguing that race is an inherent disadvantage in a physiological manner, but in a social manner. Race is a social construct that is used to group people. In many places, especially America, this social construct has been used to explicitly and implicitly harm these groups throughout history. Thus, one's race is an inherit disadvantage or advantage, not based on physiological differences, but social ones. You basically argue that saying race can be a disadvantage is supporting eugenics, which is far from the truth. \nMany people get frustrated when they feel cheated, but in every class, from dirt poor to filthy rich, non-white individuals face far more challenges in America than white ones. This is a fact. \nFurther, there are little to no government handouts based on race. America has one of the worst social safety nets in the western world, despite the highest GDP per capita in the world. If you are truly concerned about poverty you should look into issues like universal healthcare, changing the way we measure poverty (it is archaic, obsolete and fails many) and wealth inequality (see gini index). Few argue for your so called \"race-based handouts\" unless you're referring to reparations which is not a proposed solution to poverty but a justice initiative. You may be conflating \"handouts\" with affirmative action which aims to address issues created by historical discrimination, racism and segregation in education (and housing among other areas). \nI do not understand the issue with helping a group of people that have far more challenges than others? Slavery was not that long ago. Many older black Americans have grandparents who were slaves, legal discrimination/segregation has only been abolished for 60-70 years. There was still a school in Cleveland, MS segregated until 2016. Redlining was (is?) enforced well after it was banned in 1968. These effects are closer than you think. \nSome quality reading for you to learn why your logic fails: \n\"Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality\" - Oliver & Shapiro \n\"Medical Apartheid\" - Harriet A. Washington\n\"Progress for the Poor\" - Lane Kenworthy\n\"The New Jim Crow\" - Michelle Alexander", ">\n\nI can certainly see your point but why is equity your target and not equality? \nFrom a non-american perspective the answer seems decently simple. Use the money that you would use in handouts to build systems that raise the opportunity people have access to.\nNow only using handout money might not be enough but there are a lot of other places where you can delegate money from. Not the military cuz it secures general global peace(more peaceful now than practically any other period in his history since Pax Romana. \nYou could use the money usually used for foreign aid to help your own citizens. It might sound cynical but the highest priority of any well working nation should be its own people and when a lot of them are struggling then that should take precedence over foreign aid.\nUse all that gathered money to create institutions like NAV( Norwegian system that helps people get jobs and education and they get a monthly allowance that they can live on until they don't need it anymore) \nI'm no politician but surely there are better ways to secure equality for its own citizens.", ">\n\nBecause the US has equality on paper more or less, and yet a lot of people are still struggling. I want something near economic equity because I don't want people to suffer, and we should help those who can't help themselves, my problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.", ">\n\n\nmy problem comes from defining \"those who can't help themselves\" to \"black people.\" I see a huge problem with this on many levels.\n\nnobody's doing that, you only think they are because you don't want to acknowledge the effect racism has on opportunities for minorities, and keep desperately trying to claim its all purely based on racial backgrounds as if that's the only factor.", ">\n\nUmm wtf. Trevor Noah grew up very poor in apartheid South Africa. If you are trying to come up with some poster child for people raised with a silver spoon in their mouth and never discriminated on based on his race he is not it.", ">\n\nIt’s because you can’t erase bias in humans, and in all of these programs humans are decision makers. When you have group A in control and they administrate a program, the benefits will skew toward group A because of human nature. It happens subconsciously if not consciously.\nSo if we start from the premise that different races, ethnicities and genders have similar abilities sufficient for similar capacity for achievement, and we observe that groups B, C, etc are disproportionately disadvantaged, the only way to actually address that is to purposefully facilitate a change.\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”, Ibram Kendi says (paraphrasing) that because of this, every policy either explicitly combats racism in this way or it implicitly promotes existing racism by not doing so. It’s a good book.\nThe Cletus comment was pretty lame btw. And biased. For all you know that guy’s IQ is higher than yours.", ">\n\n\nIn “How to be an anti-Racist”,\n\nFrom the same author who openly criticised interracial adoption. Opinion disregarded.", ">\n\nI believe what he said is that adopting children of other races doesn’t mean you can’t act racist. It was a bad tweet. It doesn’t have anything to do with this argument.", ">\n\nBut certain races also face verifiable additional hardships due to their race.", ">\n\nCertain races are stuck in certain classes due to systemic racism, but now it’s less about the race and more about being stuck in a class.\nSo let’s focus on helping out people based on class (because that has the highest impact on one’s life).\nIn other words, a rich black person should not be receiving more handouts than a poor white person. Let’s focus on class.", ">\n\nThey don't", ">\n\nThey do though. If a black kid has rich parents but for some odd reason they don't wanna pay for his college tuition, the black kid will have access to far more scholarships than a white kid with poor parents who actually NEEDS the scholarship.", ">\n\n… you realize majority of these scholarships still look At financial need? They don’t just look at race. They aren’t giving them to rich black students, they are giving it to poor black students.", ">\n\nNo, treating everyone equally is racist.", ">\n\nHow?", ">\n\nI dont know but a bunch of people here are arguing for just that :D", ">\n\nIt seems so", ">\n\nYou're looking at equity purely in terms of socioeconomic status, as if the only goal of social equity were to make certain groups wealthier. Instead, social equity is intended to build up certain groups to give them the same opportunity as others. Opportunity to pursue happiness however they want, even if it may not necessarily be socioeconomically advantageous (e.g. working in a prestigious research institution studying quantum particles). \nThis brings me to another point, you don't typically need to add equity to something that already has equity. You don't build a nice kitchen in a house that already has a nice kitchen. You build a nice kitchen in a house that's been neglected and needs its value increased. This concept of equity translates to minority groups that have been systematically neglected, or worse systematically torn down. Poor white people may have a rough life, and I fully sympathize with that, but their poverty is not as a result of a centuries-old system that sought to keep them downtrodden. \nCapitalism does play a role in systematically keeping poor people poor, and this applies to any race, gender identity, or sexual orientation. But we need to also be aware that systemic racism contributes an additional burden on black people, which is why they need additional aid from government and institutions to be able to have the same opportunity as a poor white person.", ">\n\n\nBut we need to also be aware that systemic racism contributes an additional burden on black people, which is why they need additional aid from government and institutions to be able to have the same opportunity as a poor white person.\n\nNo, you need to flush out the systemic racism, instead of adding more systemic racism to the system in the hopes it will compensate the other systemic racism.", ">\n\nAre you honestly arguing that leveling the playing field is racist? \nLet's say you have two poor people in a snowstorm. One of them has a coat and one doesn't. You give a coat to the one who doesn't. Does that mean you're actively harming or margnalizing the other person who already has a coat? Of course not. They're both still poor people, but now they both have a coat with which to survive the elements. Neither one was harmed by you handing over the coat. Neither one will suddenly become wealthy by you handing over the coat. All you did is give the one who didn't have a coat an opportunity.", ">\n\nOkay what would you do if the government started a program to relief proverty and 99% of the recipients were white. Even in centers that were stationed in neighborhoods with a black, Hispanic, Asian, Indian, etc population?", ">\n\nHalt it, investigate everyone responsible, hand out some prison time, do it better next time.", ">\n\nThen would you introduce racial guidelines of would you be willing to let it happen again?\nHistorically that is what's has happen. Like the community reinvestment act.\nThe government aims for a racially neutral program to lift the economy, the program is disproportionately benefits white people even in primarily black areas and no one cares about it until years after the program is discontinued.\nNot saying that programs meant exclusively for black people always work out. Those tend to start strong until an administrative change and then those in charge steal the money put in because the new administrative actively wants it to fail and no one is really going to look into it because it's just happening to black people. Like what happened to Haiti relief or Nixon and most of the desegregation programs.", ">\n\nIt is not handed out by race don't believe the republican propaganda man.", ">\n\nSorry, u/Tryptortoise – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nSorry, u/Lockdanon14 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nAMEN!!", ">\n\nIt might seem that government handouts are given because of race because issues like poverty tend to affect minorities at a disproportionate level compared to white Americans.", ">\n\nI understand where you're coming from, but there are a couple issues with that approach:\n\nAid programs in a capitalist society have a severely limited amount of resources with which to help people, and that amount keeps getting constrained by conservative parties.\nRace does add obstacles to someone's life in addition to those created by poverty level.\n\nRace or ethnicity should be taken into account because of those additional issues, and because you have to prioritize which people to help somehow.\nThey shouldn't be the sole factor, and in fact they never are: Trevor Noah would never qualify for any aid programs in the US today, and he wouldn't have qualified for any either if he'd gone to well-ranked private schools here when he was a child. \nMost aid programs have a much longer list of requirements than just race, ethnicity, or gender: Even the few attempts at reparations or UBI in the US took other factors into account since they didn't want to apply equally to Beyonce as well as a poor single mother.", ">\n\nyup.", ">\n\nI think you’ll find that the largest beneficiaries of college admissions affirmative action are white makes. This is because of the desire for gender parity in universities. Males are admitted to programs they do not qualify for to maintain a 50-50 gender balance. Or as close as possible. Absent this admission preference, competitive universities would be at 70 percent female. \nFinally, racial preferences in admission or other benefits does not signal inferiority. It seeks to address current and historical structural disadvantages. \nYou also might consider sports like golf, tennis and swimming (not to mention, ice hockey, curling, skiing) which all favor white makes over those of other races due to financial and cultural factors. There is also the legacy admissions which are deeply problematic.", ">\n\nSorry, u/Complex_Air8 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.", ">\n\nHandouts really shouldn't be given at all, because when no body get anything, the matter of who gets what is dead simple: they don't. Correcting for past injustices with further injustices only creates greater disparity and disunity. Even then, welfare doesn't help to fight poverty. If anything, it prolongs it. I don't think anyone truly benefits from handouts in the long run, not even Cletus. We'd probably be better off just letting people keep what they earn, as that's the most fair and least racist way to go about it.", ">\n\n\nEven then, welfare doesn't help to fight poverty. If anything, it prolongs it.\n\nI suppose, in the strictest sense, it does keep poor people alive for longer....", ">\n\nYou say \"handouts\" as if they are gifts, when the reality is we are talking about recompense. Let's say the state, either through incompetence or actual malice against you specifically, bulldozed your house one day. The state has wronged you and now has an obligation to make you whole. You wouldn't tolerate someone coming around and saying, \"we don't need to to give money to Viceroy1994 specifically, we just need to create a program to help all homeless people.\" Or worse \"Viceroy1994 managed to not be poor despite the state bulldozing his house, so we don't need to compensate him.\"\nBoth of those are nonsense. The state wronged you and it can't make compensating you hinge on passing some program to help others. It can't decide you aren't poor enough so you don't actually need recompense. When the state wrongs a person, or a group of people I needs to make them whole. Even if the state has kicked the can down the road for decades. The obligation is still there.", ">\n\nThe state didn't wrong racial minorities, an old version of the state ran by an entirely different set of people wronged the ancestors of some racial minorities, the consequences of this on modern day black people in america is not clear-cut and not all bad." ]