[marcosdumay]

Well, Orwell had a thing or two to say about this in 1984. It's incredibly common in party politics.

If you are the party that always criticize something, nobody will believe that you are doing it. So, if you plan on doing something, you accuse our largest opositor of doing it, loudly and repeatedly.

[mito88]

but if you're caught later on, then fasten your seatbelts

[varispeed]

If you own the media then you can sit back and relax. At most you'll get few days of moaning and things will go back to normal. Majority of people won't even know or connect things anyway. If media are licensed, then they will never run anything that will upset government too much. I've seen this many times. Even if hostile nation's media pick up the topic and report it honestly, the government can dismiss it as a conspiracy theory or just say it is an attack. Ultimately even if people see all the evidence, most of the time they'll pretend they didn't and stick with the status quo.

[marcosdumay]

As I said above, people will just not believe it.

Things are obviously more complex than everybody just automatically not believing, and owning the discourse makes all the difference (although owning the press like a sibling comment says is overkill). But it happens again and again on politics, and rarely becomes a problem.

[cultofmetatron]

This puts that insane Qannon theory and the kids who went missing under Trump's kids in cages program in an entirely new context...

[z3ncyberpunk]

You mean Obama Biden's cages, they built them and continue to operate them after all. Exemplifying the point made above about hypocrisy

[adolph]

Hey, please correct this disinformation, its not a good look. Unaccompanied minor immigrants without documentation are safeguarded in facilities now, not jailed in cages.

[takeda]

Ok, let me correct these: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/lawyers-have-fo...

It's true they existed before, but they were used in situations when an underage child arrived to the border. Or child was found with human traffickers. They weren't splitting children from parents for longer than 42h.

Trump was the one that made the cages full, by implementing the zero tolerance policy, separating children with parents and often deporting the parents making it difficult to reunite them.

[adolph]

Hey please focus on the issue at hand, Biden uses facilities not cages. Whataboutism isn't a good look for you. Please stop using the "C" word.

[cultofmetatron]

Last I checked, Biden wasn't separating children from their parents at the border as a blanket policy and using them as leverage to get the parents to go away. Emphasis on BLANKET POLICY. Obama/Biden didn't put every child in a cage the way steven miller did.

So no, I dont' see hypocrisy here.

Its night and day. Trump's stewardship put these children in a lord of the flies scenario where they had to take care of each other and the leadership acting more like prison guards than caretakers.

I agree that Biden should close those things down but he cant just release the children into the wild. He got left with a timebomb and care has to be taken when dismantling it. Time will tell if he commits to transitioning these children to more appropriate living facilities and finding their parents (https://reason.com/2020/10/21/545-migrant-kids-snatched-by-t...) or relatives. He's been president less than 2 months. it will take time to see if he honors his commitments.

[takeda]

The effort is in progress https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/lawyers-have-fo...

They seem to locate parents for 1/6 of them within a month where trump administration just thrown hands in the air that nothing can be done, when court ruled that the children should be reunited.

[covidthrow]

> ...it will take time to see if he honors his commitments.

"I will not ban fracking." ...bans fracking

"$2,000 stimulus checks for everyone." ...$1,400 checks for some

"I have an extensive plan for COVID." ...doesn't have a COVID plan

"We need to close the immigration facilities used to separate parents and children." ...Trump admin closes one site. Biden admin reopens it

"I will eliminate President Trump’s... MPP on day one." ...hasn't ended the MPP

So far, at least on the hot ticket items, he's not running a great track record.

He's done a bunch of little stuff, but the big things promised during the campaign have systematically failed, and several the exact opposite direction.

So, sure, let's see if the career politician honors his commitments. I'm not holding my breath.

[jjeaff]

You are reaching.

re: fracking: When asked soon after the comment, he clarified that he was referring to fracking on federal property. The original context of his comments that he would ban fracking were usually centered around the controversy of Trump having opened up lots of federal land to fracking. Fracking on federal land is a small fraction of total output.

re: 2k stimulus checks. Not sure what the actual intent was, but I immediately understood it to mean that they would send out $1400 checks because $2k was the initial amount that Dems wanted and GOP negotiated it down to $600. As for "everyone" well, do we really think -everyone- should get money? Very few people are in favor of high earners getting a check.

re: covid plan. Not sure where you got that. He was working on covid and spending more time pre-Jan 20 meeting with covid experts and task forces than the president at the time. Who was preoccupied with his tv and phone.

re: MPP. Looks like it is already underway. https://www.metro.us/biden-to-bring-in/ You have to unwind programs like this to avoid causing even more harm.

re: immigration facility reopened. Biden admin provided extensive explanation of why they needed to re-open it. Unaccompanied children arriving at the border. They need some stop gap at the moment.

[secondcoming]

Indeed, like fighting systemic racism with systemic racism.

[wizzwizz4]

Actually, that's one of the more reasonable strategies of this form. What would you have done to reduce the harm of that problem?

[covidthrow]

Well, that "problem" presupposes an upward or stagnant trend, which are not demonstrably true. Then the admittedly harmful act of racism was used to accelerate resolution of "that problem".

Here's the problem with that:

- it was not demonstrated that other more productive forms of change were ineffective; in fact, history shows there has been tremendous progress in the absence of "racism to fight racism"

- it has not been shown that "racism v racism" has improved "that problem"

- it is yet to be shown the negative consequences of such a strategy, but history is full of examples of further suffering, not less

You call it "reasonable", and yet I find a complete lack of reason in its use. When challenged to provide reason, all responses I've witnessed reflect an attitude of, "I don't need to give you a reason/justify it".

To my mind, that is precisely absent of reason, so I challenge your assertion that it is in any way "reasonable".

[jjeaff]

A steady forward trend of progress seems quite reasonable. As long as you are not the one who was on the receiving end of past injustice.

In basketball, if someone gets fouled while trying to make a shot, is it unfair that everyone has to stand back while the person fouled gets to shoot free throws just because they are wearing the same color uniform?

It would be great if we could leave race out of the equation when trying to right past wrongs. Unfortunately, when a past wrong was committed based solely on race, given limited resources, the remedy likely needs to be based on race as well.

[vinger]

Revenge feels great but wears off quickly.

Racism to make up for past racism reenforces divisions and keeps racism aliveb

[jjeaff]

Restitution has nothing to do with revenge.

[covidthrow]

> In basketball, if someone gets fouled while trying to make a shot, is it unfair that everyone has to stand back while the person fouled gets to shoot free throws just because they are wearing the same color uniform?

Thank you for your very interesting example! I'll try to address it:

I believe this analogy to be erroneous. An appropriate example would fall somewhere along the lines of the following:

Imagine, in basketball, if a player fouls another player. Or, rather, a team fouls a great number of players on the opposing team. Nothing is done and the opposing team loses.

During a later game—years later, when none of the original players play for either team anymore—the two teams meet up. For an indefinite number of games between two teams, the fouled team is prescribed some number of free throws for all members of their team.

Would you consider that to be an appropriate facility to rectify the past injustice? Perhaps the fouled team's reputation was damaged because of past, persistent losses, so they were no longer able to compete effectively for years. But over time, referees notice the fouls and punish them as they occur, with traditional "fouled player gets free throws".

Should the fouls of the past team be enforced on the new, modern team in such the way described with indefinite, prescribed free throws?

Your example is obvious: yes, those individuals who are harmed are right to have an opportunity to regain advantage after they are fouled upon. But that is an equitable and obvious form of justice that has been—in one form or another—the default perspective throughout history.

What you're talking about, however, is not that. It's a far more complicated scenario the effects of which are far more difficult to quantify.

If one is to assert that harms done to people who no longer exist by people who no longer exist should be rectified by people related to those who were harmed, then I think it is also the responsibility of such a person to clearly outline and justify:

- the limits of who is eligible to receive such justice

- the degree to which harm has "trickled down" to the modern individual

- why others who have been victims of injustice are not eligible for justice

- a prescription for resolution that adequately repairs the harms

- from whom the justice should be paid

Now, this is exceedingly complex, and one could argue that it's not fair to remain complete inactive just because we cannot perfectly balance these variables. Some justice is better than no justice.

The problem is that innocent people are victimized by the decision to do something when it's not possible to quantify the impossible variables. (From which my basketball example stems.)

Now, the predominant argument seems to be something along the lines of, "we don't have to figure out these variables because everyone from the fouling team has benefited from the history."

I will counter this with an admittedly extremely offensive and unpalatable response. Before I do so, I want to be clear that my writing this does not mean that I advocate it. I mention it to show that it's not a simple matter, even if we reduce it to "those who benefit from the injustice."

If we assert that justice should be served by the people who benefited from past injustice, then it would be apt to identify that those whose ancestors faced injustice have—in some way—also benefited from the injustice. That is not to say that they are responsible, but rather to illustrate that such justification for choosing from whom the justice should come is not simple or clear.

I assert that if the principal is to ensure that those who have faced injustice—or have been indirectly harmed by injustice—are adequately "made right", then the onus is on those prescribing resolution to do it without creating further victims. If that is impossible (which it is), then it is their responsibility to identify at least a generalization of who may be victimized by such justice, and to what degree.

What I see, however, is absolute disregard for the fact that someone, anyone, is victimized by retroactive justice. No analysis or discussion of its side effects. I find this to be ethically offensive, if for no other reason than it is hypocritical to the notion of "justice" for which it purports to be.

Anything other than either precision or at least affirmative acknowledgement of side effects is either ignorant, partisan, racial, or emotional. It is not "justice" nor is it ethical.

To assert that it is the "right" thing to do is just as wrong as pretending no injustice occurred at all.

So the current state of things or path to "justice"? Call it for what it is: vengeance. Because justice is not indiscriminate.

[jjeaff]

>During a later game—years later, when none of the original players play for either team anymore

But of course, life is not like discrete games all played by unrelated teams in a vacuum. Imagine if points were cumulative (you know, like wealth, social capital, culture) and those points were passed down after each game forever. Well then of course it would make sense for a much later team to have to stand while the team that was wronged gets a few free throws.

No one is saying we should take points away from the team that fouled and give them to the team that was wronged. Just give them a few free throws.

There is nothing about any plans I have seen that could qualify as "vengeance".

A free throw isn't vengeance.

I would encourage you to read up on the history of opposition to the civil rights movement in America and note how clearly many of your ideas echo that opposition.

The, "if we give them a chance, that might cause us the slightest tinge of possible harm, so we cannot give them that chance" has been the mantra since immediately after the emancipation proclamation and has been repeated ever since.

[wizzwizz4]

Okay, first up: make sure we're talking about the same thing.

I'm talking about hiring (etc.) quotas requiring the demographics of (e.g.) a workplace to be roughly similar to the demographics of the general population. Fuzzy quotas, so a two-person team doesn't have to be representative but a 20 000 person company shouldn't be almost exclusively white men in their 30s.