15
   

Bernie wants a revolution! But let's not get crazy, right?

 
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 08:25 pm
@joefromchicago,
Your remarks are noted
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 08:32 pm
@snood,
snood wrote:

Your remarks are noted

And apparently unanswerable.
snood
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 08:40 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

snood wrote:

Your remarks are noted

And apparently unanswerable.

Unintentionally, that's the truest thing you've written here. When someone says Ta-Nehisi Coates doesn't take reparations seriously, you're right - there's no answer to thinking like that.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 09:34 pm
Bernie may want a revolution, but it ain't gonna happen. Too many high hurdles to jump.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 11:19 pm
@snood,
Of course Coates is not serious about reparations. His Atlantic article did a very convincing job of explaining that blacks have been discriminated against in the US. But that's about it.

The case for reparations has the same three components as a legal case: (1) liability; (2) damages; and (3) relief. At best, Coates established liability. On the other hand, he failed to establish the amount of damages, and he explicitly punted on the issue of relief - i.e. the method by which reparations would be implemented. In short, his argument boils down to: "blacks have had it rough, you figure out the rest." Any lawyer who presented that sort of argument would be laughed out of court.

So yes, Coates's argument is not serious.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  4  
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2016 10:32 am
@snood,
Beyond the logomachy of what is "serious" I think the central argument joefromchicago has is worth addressing. The argument goes: if nobody can come up with a serious proposal on how this would work then this cannot be seriously considered.

Coates obviously takes the subject seriously, but if he has no good ideas on how to do this either then this is a legitimate weakness in his position and this is what joefromchicago is legitimately criticizing (and whether or not he is serious is just an irrelevant logomachy).

But I don't get to ask him questions so I'm more interested in what you have to say. Do you have any ideas on how this might work? I am legitimately willing to be convinced of the case for reparations. It is obvious that the injustice is real, pervasive and the effect still currently prevalent. I don't need any convincing on that if it can be done it would be right a moral wrong.

But I don't know how reparations on any significant scale would work. I can't think of a way that is not more harmful than helpful. I also think that reparations are deficient in ways that class-based approaches are not.

So do you have any answer to this question on how reparations could work? I am sincerely curious as to what I might be missing because I can't find a way to do it.
snood
 
  0  
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2016 10:47 am
@Robert Gentel,
I think that's a specious argument. Can we say that Bernie Sanders is "not serious" about his proposals because he provides no detail for how to implement them beyond a repeated bellow that things aren't fair as they are?
No, the reason he can't be dismissed just because he has no blueprint for how to finance his "plan" for revolution is because he has a moral imperative - people know that the things he says (although often admittedly not much more substantial than platitudes) about income inequality and international trade are true.

NO -it's understandable that everyone disagrees about how Bernie's proposals might be made feasible. It's totally understandable and credible to say that the calculations necessary to bring Bernie's plans to fruition will be difficult to say the least .It will involve navigating clashing economic and sociological theories and political agendas to even begin planning how to proceed, if Bernie becomes president.

Similarly, it is ridiculous to say that anyone advocating for serious consideration - consideration, mind you - of reparations is "not serious" if they are speaking without an economically feasible plan already in hand. It will obviously be an extremely difficult plan to make - fraught with emotional landmines and clashing economic and sociological theories.
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2016 11:17 am
@snood,
snood wrote:
I think that's a specious argument. Can we say that Bernie Sanders is "not serious" about his proposals because he provides no detail for how to implement them beyond a repeated bellow that things aren't fair as they are?


Yes (if you are asking me, I can't answer for Bernie's supporters). I think that's the most legitimate criticism of Bernie, that he is quick to say populist things but that these things may not actually be desirable or practical and if he has put no thought into the actual implementation of it they are just nice ideals.

Some may agree with the ideals and that is fine, but others may want more than that and I think that is fine too.

Quote:
Similarly, it is ridiculous to say that anyone advocating for serious consideration - consideration, mind you - of reparations is "not serious" if they are speaking without an economically feasible plan already in hand. It will obviously be an extremely difficult plan to make - fraught with emotional landmines and clashing economic and sociological theories.


I find the argument about how "serious" Coates is to be a distracting logomachy and am not personally interested in it. But I do think that pointing out that he has not proposed an implementation points out a weakness in his position.

Obviously a position that includes a thoughtful and viable implementation is stronger than one that does not and if a viable implementation is proposed it would make the case for reparations much stronger.
snood
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2016 11:44 am
@Robert Gentel,
RG wrote:
Quote:
Obviously a position that includes a thoughtful and viable implementation is stronger than one that does not and if a viable implementation is proposed it would make the case for reparations much stronger.


More obvious to you than me, I think. I think it might make a stronger argument to Robert Gentel. I think a whole bunch of those who blanch at the thought of slavery reparations wouldn't be the least bit assuaged, being presented with a detailed, economically viable plan. We may have to agree to disagree here.
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2016 11:48 am
@snood,
I am not looking for an economic argument. I am looking for a plan that is politically viable and that addresses what I see as the deficiencies of a race-based solution where I think a class-based solution is preferable. I've explained (both here and in private messages) why I see a class-based solution as preferable to you, you've not made one argument in favor of a race-based solution to me, and just keep casting snide aspersions my way about being unwilling to have the discussion in the first place (despite me seeking it out).

I am sincerely willing to be convinced by a thoughtful proposal, you only offered me snide comments about my intentions. Nothing new to see here so I'm moving on. Maybe one day someone here will make a thoughtful argument for reparations but you clearly are not going to be that person.
snood
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2016 11:53 am
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
you've not made one argument in favor of a race-based solution to me, and just keep casting snide aspersions my way about being unwilling to have the discussion in the first place.


I see some of your tone as snide also, but that's neither here nor there ultimately. The reason I haven't addressed your race/class based distinction is because I see it as a deflection. Slavery was a race-based Crime. The reparations for it would be race based by definition.

[edit]
I know there were a number of other than black people who got pulled into American chattel slavery. In those cases (a tiny minority, I'd guess), the qualification would be by proof of ancestry.
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2016 11:59 am
@snood,
snood wrote:
I see some of your tone as snide also, but that's neither here nor there ultimately.


I was not once intentionally snide to you snood, you were to me in private messages where I made the mistake of thinking you wanted a sincere discussion.

Quote:
The reason I haven't addressed your race/class based distinction is because I see it as a deflection. Slavery was a race-based Crime. The reparations for it would be race based by definition.


This is an argument that I went out of my way to acknowledge the legitimacy of in my private message to you (my exact words were that it "is actually a legitimate criticism of a class-based approach"), yet you consider the deficiencies I see in race-based solutions mere deflection to ignore and don't bother to answer them while trying to portray your interlocutors as unwilling to even discuss the matter.

You are quite obviously the one less willing to have an honest discussion about this matter and I won't make the mistake of thinking it was a sincere discussion again.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2016 12:05 pm
@Robert Gentel,
I think in this day and age, talking about reparations doesn't making sense. Slavery ended in 1865. If it's going to be race based, how about those who arrived after that period? Why should they shoulder any responsibility?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2016 12:24 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Well sir, you appear to be looking for an excuse to leave in a snit. Don't go away mad, just go away.
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2016 12:25 pm
@snood,
I'm still right here, pointing out your inability to articulate arguments for a position you criticize others for not adopting. What I won't do again is mistake you for an honest interlocutor but I'm not going anywhere. Whenever this topic comes up on A2K I'll be willing to discuss it, hopefully with people who can do it a less of a disservice than yourself.
snood
 
  0  
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2016 12:30 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Yeah you're here all right. And I articulate the thoughts I wish to convey just fine, thank you. I'm not pushing the idea that no one wants to talk about it, you're for some odd reason pushing the idea that I'm pushing it.
I've just said I don't have a plan, but it's still worth discussing. I'm not totally sure of exactly what the hell your ailment is about anything I've said here.
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2016 12:36 pm
@snood,
I made a sincere and honest attempt to discuss this with you when you sent me a private message. I articulated what I see as my problems with race-based solutions vs class-based solutions. You ignored it yet your response was an intentionally snide remark questioning my willingness to even have this discussion.

If you are not sure what my qualm is then let me make it perfectly clear: I made a legitimate attempt to discuss it, even in private in case that is what you prefer, but you portray anyone who doesn't agree with the concept as being unwilling to have the discussion and that is some grade A bullshit you are peddling. I approached the discussion with you with an open mind and willing to be convinced but all you did is cast aspersions.

You aren't willing to even discuss the deficiencies of race-based solutions, you just want to play the race card and say that your interlocutors are unwilling to talk about the subject. It is intellectually dishonest and is what I am deploring here.
snood
 
  0  
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2016 12:42 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
you portray anyone who doesn't agree with the concept as being unwilling to have the discussion and that is some grade A bullshit


That's a lie. I haven't said anything like "Anyone who disagrees with reparations is just unwilling to have the discussion." THAT's bullshit.

Quote:
You aren't willing to even discuss the deficiencies of race-based solutions, you just want to play the race card and say that your interlocutors are unwilling to talk about the subject. It is intellectually dishonest and is what I am deploring here.


We haven't even BEGUN to have a discussion contrasting race based and class based solutions. YOU'RE the one who got hot under the dollar first here, and you need to check your own motives for the answer to why. Race card my ass. I said slavery was race based and I don't think that's "pulling" any card.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2016 12:52 pm
@snood,
Hey, guys, there was a misunderstanding, and you're both escalating it to new highs. Please cool down before it becomes untenable.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2016 12:57 pm
@snood,
snood wrote:
That's a lie. I haven't said anything like "Anyone who disagrees with reparations is just unwilling to have the discussion." THAT's bullshit.


I did not say that you made that declaration. I said that you treat everyone who disagrees with reparations that way. And I stand by that, I don't know of one example of a person who you are willing to engage with on this without casting those aspersions you do about them.

I was willing to just assume that they were morally justified and that only practical implementation concerns stood in their way. I was trying to see your point of view. You just cast your usual bullshit aspersions on me while ignoring what I have to say as being a "deflection".

Quote:
We haven't even BEGUN to have a discussion contrasting race based and class based solutions.


Speak for yourself. I most definitely have begun to discuss and contrast them, you say you ignore it because it is a "deflection".

Quote:
Race card my ass. I said slavery was race based and I don't think that's "pulling" any card.


No the race card you play is where because i do not agree with you on this subject you cast aspersions my way about my willingness to face the crimes committed against blacks instead of addressing my arguments.

I am trying to find a way to agree with you here and you still can't help but do it.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/29/2020 at 05:05:03