[ImPostingOnHN]

> perpetuating the logic of groups being advantaged over groups only keeps the identitarian mindset going

maybe, maybe not - the goal, however, is not to "not keep the 'identitarian' mindset going", it is to right past wrongs, make those wronged people whole, and only then ignore identity, as long as everyone else can do it too.

[vacuity]

> the goal, however, is not to "not keep the 'identitarian' mindset going"

I wonder about that. Unfortunately, neither of us has evidence and is just spouting opinions. I'm not being snarky; the space of "maybe this person has a different goal, and maybe they don't even realize it" is a quagmire. I agree with the rest of your statement, and I think that's the only part necessary to drive progress. Who cares what others hold in their psyches as long as actual problems are solved? (I care, but I don't believe in thoughtcrime, so I won't force the issue.)

[ImPostingOnHN]

> I wonder about that.

I don't: it's pretty clear if you look into the history and explanation of it.

> Unfortunately, neither of us has evidence and is just spouting opinions. I'm not being snarky; the space of "maybe this person has a different goal, and maybe they don't even realize it" is a quagmire

you are correct that different people have different goals, and the ones who are in favor of affirmative action have the goals I described in the post you responded to.

I have no doubt that people who oppose affirmative action may have different goals, ones which lead them to oppose it, but luckily, I do not require evidence to be convinced that wrongs should be righted before calling everything even.

[yakshaving_jgt]

> right past wrongs, make those wronged people whole, and only then ignore identity

Ok, so what’s the dollar amount? At what point can we say the past wrongs have been righted, and that everyone should stop talking about identity now?

[ImPostingOnHN]

that's an interesting question, but not one I feel we need to decide now. I'd be happy to hear your suggestions, but obviously "0" wouldn't be a workable one

e.g. it should be at least 1 dollar, so we can start with 1 dollar without needing to decide the upper limit

indeed, it seems like a question intended to stop the action entirely, rather than one intended to discover the right magnitude of action

as for when everyone can stop talking about racial identity: the racism ongoing today itself is an example of this, so when racists stop doing so first, anti-racists can, second

[yakshaving_jgt]

The question is designed to guide us towards a realistic course of action.

If you can't define a target upon which reaching it would allow us to consider the problem solved, then suggesting that anyone will move beyond identitarianism after the problem has been solved is totally disingenuous.

To suggest that there is no need to define an upper limit to reparations implies that you don't believe the problem ever can be solved, and that these kinds of multi-generational grievances should persist perpetually.

I don't agree that "0" is unworkable. I'm obviously not thrilled that my not at all distant relatives were slaughtered by Nazis, but holding my breath for reparations is only going to do me a disservice and isn't going to bring those people back or undo that suffering.

The suggestion to "start with 1 dollar" is frankly bizarre. Is that all my dead relatives are worth? A dollar?

[ImPostingOnHN]

> The question is designed to guide us towards a realistic course of action. If you can't define a target upon which reaching it would allow us to consider the problem solved, then suggesting that anyone will move beyond identitarianism after the problem has been solved is totally disingenuous.

the goal isn't to "move beyond identity" yet, it is to right past wrongs. Once we've done that, we can move onto another goal like the one you suggest there.

how will we know when we're at the finish line? It isn't actually necessary to figure that out upfront (that's what agile planning is about, for example). All that's necessary is to ask "are we there now?", and we aren't, so more effort is required before reassessing

when slavery was instituted, the people who supported it didn't ask "when will it be too much slavery?", so we don't now need to ask "when will we make up too much for it?"

> I don't agree that "0" is unworkable

I do, so maybe you can suggest another number, and we can compromise, try it out, and reassess afterwards: after all, it's not like giving 1 dollar would be worse than slavery!

[yakshaving_jgt]

> maybe you can suggest another number, and we can compromise, try it out, and reassess afterwards: after all, it's not like giving 1 dollar would be worse than slavery!

I’m sorry, but this line of reasoning is so utterly insane that I can no longer continue to engage.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> I’m sorry, but this line of reasoning is so utterly insane that I can no longer continue to engage

is it? I'm not so sure.

this response sounds like when advocates of the former president similarly thought themselves above engaging with what they similarly believed was the "insanity" of the american people, and said former guy lost as a result.