[yucky]

Your analogy doesn't work because it assumes anything that happens to your ancestors necessarily affects you directly for every generation that comes after, forever. Your monopoly example is using a game that you and I play in directly against each other, when the reality is we have no idea how much positive or negative impact the ancestors of any given person has had on their lot in life.

Do you think people in Appalachia or a trailer park near you who have lived in generational poverty are some how benefited by their skin color? That would assume upper class people associate themselves with lower class, just due to skin color. But we know really that it's based on in groups and out groups. To test this, ask the average upper or upper middle class educated white person to describe the average trailer park dweller with the same color skin, and see their response.

It also assumes a lot of things based on skin color alone. If the concern is that we want to help those who need financial assistance, or educational assistance or whatever then there are ways to do that with means testing, not by relying on a Sherwin Williams color chart held up against your skin.

[ModernMech]

> anything that happens to your ancestors necessarily affects you directly for every generation that comes after, forever.

No, that's not what I said. The point is that the state of the system interplays with the rules governing the system. You can't ignore the state of the system and declare the game fair by looking at just the rules.

> when the reality is we have no idea how much positive or negative impact the ancestors of any given person has had on their lot in life.

I mean, we do though. Generational wealth is a thing. American slavery isn't even the distant past; the last person born into slavery died within living memory.

> If the concern is that we want to help those who need financial assistance, or educational assistance or whatever then there are ways to do that with means testing

Right, which involves a process of discrimination to correct for past discrimination.

> not by relying on a Sherwin Williams color chart held up against your skin.

Of course there are better ways to do things than this terrible strawman you built.

[yucky]

   > I mean, we do though. Generational wealth is a thing. American slavery isn't even the distant past

70% of generational wealth is lost by the 2nd generation, 90% by the 3rd generation[1][2][3], and it grows even more distant each generation after that. American slavery was around 15-20 generations ago, meaning there is almost zero generational wealth left in the same family hands from slavery. Also, a tiny percentage of American are even descended from a slave holding family in the first place..

So if 15-20 generations isn't long enough, how many more generations into the future would you say we need to discriminate against people based on skin color before we can call it enough? And what do we do about the millions of poor people with the wrong color skin, just keep discriminating against them due to their race and hope they don't take it personally?

   > Of course there are better ways to do things than this terrible strawman you built.

It's not a strawman though. If you're basing preferential treatment on race, how exactly do you determine that? Race isn't a scientific thing, so we have to either take people at their word or use a color chart. Is there a different method you had in mind?

[1] https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/generational-wealth:-why-do-...

[2] https://money.com/rich-families-lose-wealth/

[3] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-why-90-of-rich-peopl...

[ModernMech]

> American slavery was around 15-20 generations ago

Maybe you missed where I said the last person born into slavery died in living memory.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_last_survivors_of_Am...

But the discussion of slavery kind of misses the larger point; that systemic discrimination was not in fact dismantled in America with the end of chattel slavery. Other systems replaced the intent, and those persisted long past the Civil War, well into recent history to today.

> It's not a strawman though. If you're basing preferential treatment on race, how exactly do you determine that?

No one is holding up color scales to people’s skin, and no one suggested doing so, certainly not me. That’s how your argument is a straw man.

It sounds like you are trying to make a different argument now, and if you want to make that one without building a straw man, please do so.

[yucky]

I gave you the data that shows your claims of generational wealth trickling through to an entire race of people, are false. You haven't addressed that.

You are the one making the argument that we need racial discrimination to right past wrongs. I gave you the reasons that is not only immoral, but unworkable. So if you have some method to make your vision of present & future racial discrimination a net benefit for society, I would like to hear it. Logically it isn't possible, so I'm curious to hear your proposed solution.

[ModernMech]

You supplied three links about how wealthy families lose fortunes over time, I don't think they're really relevant to the discussion. They don't address anything we're talking about here, which is how some groups are systemically held back by building wealth in the first place.

[yucky]

What is the argument for basing policies on race, rather than actual need? Also, how do you verify race?