Bottom-line cancel culture' in full effect is on display. Predictable. Like 'suicide by mod' here on TPF. — 180 Proof

Watching Adams respond to the Rasmusson Poll did seem like a deliberate career-ending act. [It's on YouTube -- The relevant video is in Episode 2027 of Scott Adams vlog, starting at 13:28] He's been doing Dilbert for about 34 years.

The Rasmusson Poll isn't a scam, but it isn't a highly rated polling organization either. Adams peevishness seemed like a 'put on' to me. Why fasten on to a third-rate poll result (automated telephone/internet polling)? His response doesn't seem sufficiently motivated by the poll itself.

I don't know anything about Adams and I've never been very interested in Dilbert. I can't tell whether he was being serious or merely provocative. Did he miscalculate the effect of his provocative statements? Don't know.

I don't much care, either. I don't own any stock in Adams or Dilbert. But provocations like his make it more difficult to have any sort of nuanced response because it drives people into extreme positions.

The hard-core damage of racism isn't done by people like Adams. It's done through national and corporate policies that have highly material consequences. If Adams wants to avoid living in close proximity to blacks, he would be making a choice that a good share of white people have made in the past and still make. The whole post-WWII housing program was a policy of multi-generational racial segregation: Urban core rental apartments for blacks, home ownership in the suburbs for whites. The official policy isn't in effect now, but the effect is on-going, and new instances of racial segregation are also on-going.

Adams saying he was going to live with other white people is hardly a remarkable stance. It's a choice that has been officially facilitated for what -- 50,000,000 American white families? 60,000,000? Many.

Cancelation is an easy response. Ask yourself: Where do the executives of the newspaper chains cancelling Dilbert live? In racially mixed urban cores, or in gated communities? In iffy-conflict zones between wealthy and poor communities, or solidly within wealthy communities?

When it comes to grammar and lexicon, I am not as liberal as @Hanover. (I am as aware as he is that language changes over time.). Yes, I am aware that some people find various aspects of the language oppressive. The business of people being "nonbinary" has been carried way too far. The idea of bi-sexuality is well established; multi-sexuality and multiple genders is, basically, baloney (salchicha de baja calidad. (Did Google translate that properly? Low quality sausage?)

Granted, the variation between strictly heterosexual and homosexual (6 stages, according to Kinsey) the various object choices (what, exactly, turns one on), levels of libido, and various aspects of personality account for lots of individual differences in sexual (or any other kind of) experience. Cooking up a list of dozens of imaginary genders and sexualities is false. No one is under any obligation to recognize anything on the list.

It's another consequence of the postmodern idea of pervasive social construction, as opposed to the operations of biology (or nature). Only by supposing that reality is a social construct can one believe that there are 77 different genders.

My advice to the individuals who find they have highly specialized and esoteric sexuality is "get over it".

What about trans persons? I have known quite a few trans persons. A grand nephew is trans. I'm OK with it, in as much as it isn't my problem to deal with often. Trans personhood involves too much difficulty to be anything other than real (one wouldn't pretend).

I doubt you say the T in doubt — Hanover

Did you mean the B in doubt? Or has Georgia developed an indubitably devious pronunciation of "doub"? Or maybe you just leave the ending consonant off, as in "I dow i".

The Latinate "b" in doubt was deleted by the French. "Doute" came into English sans 'b'. It was inserted into "doute" by early scribes (secretarial monks) based on the Latin spelling of dubitare. This reinsertion of a lost letter in Latin ---> French ---> English is quite unusual.

insanity, with the idea that "gender" is completely arbitrary and has nothing to do with natural sex — javi2541997

That's why those with liquified gender, fluid gender, or viscous gender--whatever--have somehow gotten everyone to say "gender assigned at birth". "Assignment" suggests that the identification of gender is arbitrary. 99.9% of the population will identify or recognize gender in a new born by checking out the anatomy of the baby. 99.9% of the time, babies exhibit unambiguous sexual features. Granted, in a quite small share o births, genitals are ambiguous, and further examination is needed.

I had not read your response to Storm, Mont, or Moliere.

As a rational animal, — Vera Mont

Well, maybe, sort of, sometimes, or not.

it is shaped continually by a deliberative act to do so — schopenhauer1

That our existence is a series of deliberate acts is a fiction created by our minds, which SEEM to make decisions based on rational considerations. The fiction is created when desire or need compels our brains to come up with a method to satisfy desire/need. It seem like we sought the solution voluntarily.

Signmund Freud famously said "We are not masters of our own houses." We don't have much intellectual control over the wishes and needs that drive our thinking and behavior. We share this feature with the rest of the animal kingdom to which we belong.

There is a tremendous range of possible outcomes in the way our wishes and needs are, or are not rsolved. This variety adds to the sense of our voluntary invention, but it's not voluntary. Life isn't any less enjoyable (or horrible) because we aren't in charge. Further we can reflect upon our lives, ad come to understand at least some of the terms under which we exist.

BUT, reflective understanding or not, we're still not doing a whole lot 'deliberately'.

We humble homos seek meaning and purpose and in the process project it onto the world and pretend that we have found it! — MojaveMan

We don't "pretend" that we have found meaning and purpose. In a grandly meaningless universe, it's our task to create meaning and purpose. A person may or may not have done a good job creating meaning or purpose.

There are two things which people may fear about death: One is the period of dying -- the final illness. It might be a prolonged period of suffering. The other is being dead, and what the alleged afterlife might involve. Depending on the variety, deeply held religious ideas may intensify this fear.

I'm 76. Death from one cause or another is probably not in the distant future. What comes after death is logically like what comes before birth: nothing. In the meantime, life remains interesting. I don't want to hurry death along.

Thank you. It is my pleasure, Javi. But perhaps we shouldn't abuse this space ... Private messages (INBOX) may be a solution to this. — Alkis Piskas

No, no -- this is interesting. Don't hide your light under an inbox.

@javi2541997

Guidelines for Non-Sexist Use of Language"! — Alkis Piskas

Millions of English speaking Christians grew up "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost". Starting back in the 1970s, feminists felt aggrieved and started agitating in the name of "the Creator, the Redeemer, and either the Holy Spirit or 'Sustainer'". OK, so 'ghost' is a bit anachronistic. Is God gendered? Maybe not for some people, but Jesus definitely was male, like it or not. So, after endless bitching and carping, liturgy and hymns have been neutered in many Christian denominations. The changes in wording have resulted in more bitching and carping.

This isn't all bad -- God, after all, has never submitted to a physical examination. The less particularity and fewer specifics we assign to God the better. (Why? Because God is just not like us. "My ways are not your ways" he said.

There is a distinct difference between vernacular English and formal, literary, and academic English. The proper use of language requires speaking and writing in the right register, depending on one's purpose and audience.

An aside: The grammar and vernacular core vocabulary of English is Anglo-Saxon (A-S). Fiction, at least, can be written using the core A-S vocabulary. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is about 85-90% A-S. (The remaining 15% are word derived from French after the Norman Conquest (1066). That makes it very easy reading.

It's very difficult to write anything very complicated in A-S because so much of the old vocabulary was discarded over time, and the Angles and Saxons were agrarian people, not urban sophisticates which is not to say they were dull and stupid.

Referring to Who Stole Feminism?, The War Against Boys and some similar titles...

The following is tangentially related to Latinx. It's about the way in which groups are represented by opinion-making mass media, pictorially as well as in words.

One of the things I have noticed over the last several years -- maybe a decade -- is a change in the way media represent particular groups. Promotional material of colleges often use pictures of women in class, labs, etc. with few men visible. In the US, women do make up a majority of students on many campus. The imbalance of men and women in college seems like a significant problem that isn't being addressed adequately.

Another disproportionate representation is that of gay people. The standard gay couple, or gay group, is more often than not female. Statistically, gay men represent a much larger share of the gay population than gay women--36% male, 19% female--and always have. The largest group in the GLBTQ... salad are bisexuals (40%), of which the largest group are women--29% vs. 11%. Bisexuals don't get a lot of press, one way or the other. Apparently media do not know how to represent them. I don't either.

Transgendered people, in one form or another, are the HOT group in media. The GLBTQ... salad makes up only 5% of the whole population and trans people make up about 5% of the GLBTQ... population, or a very tiny fraction of the whole population. None the less, a lot of articles are written about trans people. One would think, sometimes, that 30,000,000 Americans were thinking of switching genders. It's more like a few hundred thousand, out of 330 million.

Another annoyance is that parts of the media seems to have concluded that most gay men were, are, or want to be drag queens. Some do, true enough -- and doing it well takes a lot of effort, time, practice. More power to them, but (merciful god!) most gay men are not drag queens.

It is thus no surprise that media don't do a good job naming suramericanos, hispanics, and latinos.

BTW, Old English was as gendered as modern German. Most of the gendered forms were discarded starting around 1100 years ago, as Old English evolved into Middle English and as Middle English evolved into Modern English, about 600 years ago--give or take 15 minutes.

More on Latinx:

According to Pew Research, "About One-in-Four U.S. Hispanics Have Heard of Latinx, but of that 25%, just 3% Use It". This is a link to the Pew article

Pew Research is a good source of information on social behavior.

An example - I remember reading a non-fiction psychology book I had heard good things about. In the preface, the author indicated he had alternated using "she," and "he;" and "him" and "her" in different sections of the text — T Clark

A good case can be made for inclusion of feminine pronouns when the pronoun represents a group of people. English, as you know, long ago established the masculine 'man' and 'mankind', 'he' and 'his' as the collective plural. So much so, that if the text said "womankind" we guys would know we weren't included.

Using 'she' and 'her' can be a bit jarring: "She led her troop of tough marines into battle." Are marines invariably male? They were, unless things changed last week. But "She steered the company through a difficult recession." sounds OK. to me even if men are more commonly CEOs.

Your OP touches on many of my linguistic pet peeves.

A particularly egregious practice is replacing "pregnant woman" with "pregnant person". Why would they do that? Because men can get pregnant! Oh? I wasn't aware that men had ovaries or uteruses. Well, this alleged "man" did: She decided she was a man, changed her name and wardrobe, took some testosterone, and left his? her? reproductive apparatus intact. Then "he?" decided "she?" should have a child, so he or she, wtf, stopped taking testosterone, and a little later she (a definite she now) got pregnant by an actual man and 9 months later bore a child.

This miraculous birth was celebrated by 'constructivists' who think gender and sex is a social invention. This nonsense would be bad enough if 'child-bearing men' only appeared in marginal academic discussions, but no -- "pregnant person" is a usage of National Public Radio and the New York Times (maybe not the New York Post.)

Some people state that the "-'s" ending that makes a noun possessive, e.g. "Javi's tea," was an abbreviation of the pronoun "his," and that "his" was used in this way because women were all possessions of men. — javi2541997

The technical term for this theory is "bullshit". Let's get technical about 's.

's
suffix forming the genitive or possessive singular case of most Modern English nouns; its use gradually was extended in Middle English from Old English -es, the most common genitive inflection of masculine and neuter nouns (such as dæg "day," genitive dæges "day's"). The "-es" pronunciation is retained after a sibilant.
Old English also had genitives in -e, -re, -an, as well as "mutation-genitives" (boc "book," plural bec), and the -es form never was used in plural (where -a, -ra, -na prevailed), thus avoiding the verbal ambiguity of words like kings'.
In Middle English, both the possessive singular and the common plural forms were regularly spelled es, and when the e was dropped in pronunciation and from the written word, the habit grew up of writing an apostrophe in place of the lost e in the possessive singular to distinguish it from the plural. Later the apostrophe, which had come to be looked upon as the sign of the possessive, was carried over into the plural, but was written after the s to differentiate that form from the possessive singular. By a process of popular interpretation, the 's was supposed to be a contraction for his, and in some cases the his was actually "restored." [Samuel C. Earle, et al, "Sentences and their Elements," New York: Macmillan, 1911] — Online Etymology Dictionary

many users on the site are alone in rooms — Jack Cummins

One of the basic building blocks of human experience is loneliness. It is common and it is painful.

What good is sitting
Alone in your room?
Come hear the music play
Life is a cabaret, old chum
Come to the cabaret

I've done that often enough -- if one can call a run of the mill gay bar a "cabaret". It can help for a while, unless the bar's atmosphere is condensed alienation -- in which case, flee.

I didn't think Smith was a problem -- he didn't bother me.

Great post.

look around and notice it with others too. We simply don’t realize that so much of what we think we know, who we listen to, the company we keep, the jobs we do, and how we generally live our lives, is determined by factors beyond our control — the time and place you are born, your genes, your parents and upbringing, your culture and peers, early life experiences, education, etc. — Mikie

OR

I wonder to what extent the stuff we read and write about is simply a product of our class, our parents class and education, and our upbringings — but also by the levels of energy we possess, how strong our stomachs are, how anxious or stressed we are, whether we’re sleep deprived or not, if we carry with us much physical pain, etc. Very different philosophies (and lives) can come out of such simple things. — Mikie

Excellent! Either paragraph will do.

Our 'intellectual facilities' like to think they are above it all, not affected by all the good and bad stuff that compose our histories. Freud's point that "we are not masters of our own houses" is apropos here. It seems to take a long time for us to come to grips with all this.

I've been enjoying Peter Zeihan for the past few weeks, his speeches and hi book "The End of the World is just the Beginning: Mapping the Collapse of Globalization". It fits my pessimism, true, and it also does a nice job of explaining how advantages accrue or not to particular nations and regions. His thesis is that after WWII, the now-dominant USA offered to maintain peaceful world trade in exchange for cooperation (AKA, do what we tell you to do). The current regime of market globalization developed under this umbrella.

This regime is going to end as the US backs away from its near 80 year guarantee of safe trade on the high seas. Demographics is also going to kill it. Because world population expanded a lot after WWII there were plenty of cheap workers everywhere. That is over. Many countries, whole regions, now have large older populations and much smaller younger populations. Fewer people means smaller and shrinking economies. As an economic powerhouse, China is near the end of the road.

Point is, I'm primed to like that sort of thing.

Nobody planned to end up with too many old people and not enough young people. It happened. Some regions -- North America, France, Turkey, Argentina, New Zealand, and a few others don't have this problem--not by design, just good fortune.

Zeihan has a bunch of YouTube lectures. He's a good speaker, easy to grasp.

Maybe my response was too aggressive. I hadn't looked at the Huffington Post piece when I responded.

In New Age wisdom, this truth is easily accepted, but what is the evidence that backs this up? If the physical form is in fact an illusion, who are you having sex with? — Huffington Post

I don't know what your philosophical/intellectual background is. Sanskrit is not in mine and neither is Indian (Hindu?) thought. Fans of "New Age 'Wisdom'" seem prepared to believe a lot of flaky propositions. (The flakiness occurs during the casual borrowing of bits and pieces of other religious systems.).

Animal sensory ability--bacteria on up to us--perceives the actual physical world. We can dither about illusions but wolves and rabbits don't. Wolf/rabbit brains work pretty much the same way our do. When our existence is subjected to harsh conditions where survival is dicey, we don't worry about illusions either. We also grab the rabbit and eat it--raw, if necessary.

Once we have the leisure to roast domestic rabbits, we start spinning out interesting ideas about gods, illusion, Maya, the Trinity, Karma, and so on. Some of this thinking is not illusory, it's delusional. Our - perhaps - overly intellectual brains seem to need a certain amount of delusional thinking to put up with life. Otherwise, some people find reality terrifying.

Reality IS terrifying, I'm not terrified just right now, but drop me off in the middle of nowhere and I'd be scared shitless.

"Life" might be nothing more than an ongoing, self-esteeming story certain ephemeral, coprophagic arrangements of matter are telling themselves. — 180 Proof

Succinct summation!

The fact that we are self-aware is nothing but an illusion, which is a good thing, because this means we don’t die entirely as long as this universe exists. We just change our form.

Is that a fact?

Is this alleged illusion your hedge against death?

If self-awareness is an illusion, why isn't your claim that we exist (in some form) as long as the universe exists also an illusion?

Change form -- into what? Not only are the atoms which make up our bodies the products of dying stars, those atoms have been recycled through every organism that has existed since... let's say 3.7 billion years ago, give or take 15 minutes. Not only that, but some of those atoms also partiipated in being rocks for a while. Your atoms are goin to do the same thing -- leave you behind and become something else which will also be short lived.

In my universe, the lame don't walk, the blind don't see, and the dead stay dead. Entirely. That's what death means. Non-existence, period. But take heart. You sofa and shoes will join you in oblivion at their earliest possible convenience.

Who knew there were ‘amateur balloonist groups’? — Wayfarer

No body knew that. What you call 'amateur balloon groups' are insidious front groups for aliens without flying saucers (awfs). Commercial airline travel became so unpleasant that aliens resorted to balloons--and now that option is gone, thanks to the corrosive Chinese.

Tesla self-driving-car owners beware: your vehicle software is vulnerable to undetectable alien overrides and Teslas are nicer than unheated balloons.

Ask @Shawn. Hmm, he hasn't been active for 6 days. Hope you are OK, Shawn!

I also have a question: "Why almost all known conspiracy theories involve the US?" — Alkis Piskas

Because we're the tallest hog in the trough.

The payload was a dead alien travelling with the balloon. — Alkis Piskas

I also have questions: How would we know whether an alien was dead or alive? Why would a allegedly dead alien be traveling with the balloon? How was the alien getting around before it allegedly died? What happened to the allegedly dead alien's flat round space ship?

Now I worry we have entered another period like the time before WWI. — T Clark

Your worries are why "The End of the World Is Just the Beginning" is such a great book title. And the book, which is about Mapping the Collapse of Globalization is full of TIL moments.

"Here's the deal" the US said to the world. "We'll keep the peace and maintain open trade on the high seas. Our stateside market will be open to your exports. You can become richer. In return, you will, ah, cooperate with us. (In other words, do what we want you to do).

This deal was on offer after WWII and was gradually extended. Nixon invited China into the deal. They did very well as a result. Was NATO's expansion the last part of that, after the USSR collapsed? The US made globalization happen because (surprise) it was in our best interests. But, according to Peter Zeihan, the era of globalization is over because the US doesn't need it.

It isn't hard to see why Mother Russia didn't like having her former client states sucked up into somebody else's embrace. It is also not hard to see why her former client states switched partners between waltzes. The western powers (the US & Company) have, of course, been unkind to Mother Russia ever since the Bolsheviks.

And to be frank, Mother Russia has not been the ideal parent for ages, what with serfdom, despotic Tsars, Siberia, KGB, etc. Plus, Mother Russia was so XXX large nobody could swallow her up. What to do, what to do, what to do? Fence her in!

[It should go without saying, but it has to be said, great nations don't become great without stepping on as many faces it takes. The US is no different.]

My initial thought was that Ukraine is very brave but Russia is very big. If NATO stays on the side lines and "only" remains the supplier of weaponry, my guess is that Russia will still be able to eventually grind them down and win. After that, God only knows.

Ukraine doesn't seem to be releasing its own fatality figures, but anybody can see that the war is costing Ukraine many many billions of dollars worth of damage to essential infrastructure and (in time) to its agriculture and industry.

Meanwhile, deglobalization will change the global economy -- drastically for many nations which are doing well now because they can import adequate food in exchange for their raw materials. Once world trade starts shrinking, adequate food imports will dry up.

Having some sort of strong central government seems to be an important factor in how much violence a society tolerates. Where there is a strong government, the lid is kept on top of simmering interpersonal aggressions. Lose the state and things can get bad quickly.

I'm can't remember the source, but one scholar said that if you look at the recovered skulls of our hunter-gatherer ancestors or "cavemen" there was a fairly high percentage of bashed in skulls. That isn't to say they were terrible people -- just that violencce was resorted to fairly often.

Responding to your year old post...

Seems like you might want to find some new bars to hang out in.

Of course it's possible. BUT, the politics of Europe were unstable before the assassination. To some extent Serbia provided more of a pretext for powers like Russia and Germany to make and urge bellicose action, and less of a good reason.

It has been said that the leadership of 1914 Europe stumbled into WWI, and once it started couldn't achieve an outright victory in battle. The two power groups just ground against each other in really bad trench warfare which was lethal without being effective.

I don't view all wars as pointless, but WWI certainly was.

Anyway, what do you think? — Xanatos

I think it is inappropriate to take concepts developed to deal with personal and community health (like harm reduction applied to sex or injectable drug use) and apply the concepts to international relations, or visa versa. Governments and nations operate differently than individuals and small groups. Nations are not, for instance, "addicted to oil". Oil is sought after because it is the most portable affordable high energy fuel, par excellence.

Germany was not interested in negotiating with Poland over anything. They intended to wipe out Poland and Poles, just as they intended to eliminate Jews and Slavic people.

True enough, a Serbian-backed terrorist killed the Archduke and his wife. the Austro-Hungarian (A-H) Empire couldn't overlook an assassination of the heir to the throne. But Serbia didn't cause WWI, and once the fatal shot was fired, harm reduction was not an option Serbia could pursue. The A-H Empire was backed by Germany. Serbia's ally was Russia. Russia's ally was France. Britain sided with France. Turkey sided with Germany, War was declared on once side then the other.

The population of Serbia was about 3,000,000 in 1913. The number of dead soldiers and civilians in WWI was about 20,000,000. Nobody thought that Serbia was worth 20,000,000 deaths and another 20,000,000 injured, if they thought of Serbia at all. A lot of people were not clear as to WHAT WWI was about. One very clear thing is that WWI was continued 20 years later in WWII.

The Triple Entente (Britain, France, and Russia) fought the Central Powers (Turkey, Germany and A-H.) Serbia did not play a large role in the war.

Governments are made up of individuals who form a collective policy making/executing body. Governments, nations, don't have friends. They have interests. Which interest is most important determines policy.

For Ukraine, my guess is that they, individually and collectively, have a much greater interest in independence than the peace of the conquered. Ukrainians had been ruled by Russia before (1919-1990), during the Soviet era, and they didn't like it. They were the first formerly Soviet Republic to announce they were leaving the Union after it collapsed 30 odd years ago.

Peter Ziehan (author, The End of the World is Just the Beginning: Mapping the Collapse of Globalization) thinks Russia wants to repossess the Ukraine as part of Russia's long term strategy to establish secure western borders and buffer states between itself and (now, NATO). Interests, again, rather than individual obnoxiousness.

Particles have been superseded by fields
@gnomon was composed of particles.
Therefore
Gnomon has been superseded.

Sad.

:100:

That's Thomas Nagel. The bridge-laws guy is Ernest Nagel. — frank

Here we are reducing everything to physics but the right nagel escapes us.

On the one hand... Why are you telling me about flushing toilets in Psycho?

On the other hand... That's very interesting. I suppose the sound of a toilet flushing reminded people of urination and defecation, Horrors! :scream:

Wikipedia says that Psycho, 1960, was loosely based on the 1957 true story of Ed Gein, a man in central Wisconsin who was found to have a lot of body parts in his house -- never a good sign. He had murdered a couple of women and dug up several bodies. It got a lot of news coverage. I was 11 at the time.

I didn't associate Psycho (when I finally saw it many years after it first came out) with Ed Gein.

There are "shocking pictures" on line taken at the time of Gein's arrest. For instance, here's a picture of his kitchen. It's a mess, for sure. But shocking?



Here's a chair found in the house made with human skin. It really should be shocking, but a lot of shocking water has gone under the bridge since 1957.



Gein died in a Madison, Wisconsin mental hospital in 1984.

I don't have answers to good questions like yours. — Agent Smith

It's a great mercy that this is no longer my problem. My successors in sex education did pretty much the same thing as I did, but then the treatment of HIV/AIDS greatly improved, and AIDS "ceased to be a big problem" so it was said. The air has gone out of strenuous public health work, seems like. Covid 19 received a vigorous response, but a lot of people resisted vaccination, isolation, masks, social distancing, etc.

Sexually transmitted diseases are not getting appropriate attention. especially since the antibiotic resistance of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae is quite advanced. Syphilis remains curable with penicillin, but left untreated it is still a serious disease. Human papilloma virus (HPV) can become a chronic genital wart problem, and type 16 and 18 (if I remember correctly) cause cancer. I had throat cancer which was caused by HPV.

A state of crisis is always helpful in building public health capacity. Never let a good crisis go to waste! Unfortunately, a lot of serious health problems seem to have become routine, part of the scenery. Very fat people, for example. Vaping. Drug use. etc...

Bad idea — T Clark

Alright, it's settled. Put a notice in The Boston Globe informing hopeful recipients that they are officially shit out of luck.

Civil suits are not the same as reparations — T Clark

Granted.

Good arguments can be made for and against reparations. I have lots of doubts about reparations because there are philosophical and practical difficulties. Who is guilty? How far back does victimhood go? Who will be charged for the genocide of the native people? What constitutes reparation?

Germany was already subject to intense moral judgement before WWII was over. A criminal investigation commenced, charges were brought, and some reparations programs were instituted. We are now decades and centuries past the beginning of the British colonies and the several kinds of bad things that followed.

From whom is a problem; the flip side is to whom. And what exactly, and how much?

Some say that the billions spent on various forms of benefit programs (including all the rental housing that the federal government built) constitutes a substantial reparation.

I find it somewhat questionable when people come forward perhaps 50 years after being fondled, seduced, or raped and file criminal charges or sue the church, the actor, the school, or... somebody for damages.

On the other hand, the successors of Hooker Chemical were brought into court to take responsibility for Love Canal in Niagara, New York. Founded 1903, Hooker was absorbed by Occidental Petroleum in 1968. You remember, but for those who don't, Love Canal was Hooker's toxic waste dump. Later housing was built in close proximity to the leaking barrels. The company became notorious in the 1960s, when residents near its chemical waste site, Love Canal, reported extraordinarily high incidences of leukemia, birth defects, and other injuries.

Tort law seems to tolerate a long gap between event and consequence.

The FHA was established in 1935. Its policies shaped housing discrimination into the present moment. There's an 88 year gap between the FDR's signature and the very small number of blacks living in Boston's better suburbs. The injustice is that that certain types of people were unequivocally prohibited from benefiting from accumulating equity as the values of suburban properties rose.

Is this a past injustice or a current injustice?

Morally speaking, probably not. However, I'd say a direct link between the benefit and the crime should be present for it to be immoral. — Tzeentch

Establishing criminality in the case of legally authorized activity is difficult. Responsibility, sure. Guilt not so much.

Here's a more contemporary example.

The Roosevelt Administration sent a large package of New Deal legislation to Congress. Southern Democratic congressmen (the 'solid south') imposed, or attempted to impose, a heavy racial bias on the implementation of the legislation. For example, they attempted to exclude blacks from Social Security -- and were, to some extent, successful. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) was prevented from funding mixed-race housing (integrated housing, in other words). The FHA planned, and largely underwrote the huge expansion of all-white suburbs by directing banks to write mortgages for whites, and not blacks. Public housing was prescribed for blacks.

Public housing wasn't in itself a bad thing. In many cases the public housing buildings were of very good quality. There was a substantial population of people in cities who needed good rental housing, and the FHA programs met much of that need. Unfortunately, other urban processes were at work. As whites opted for the new suburbs, a good share of their city property was bought up for rental purposes, and high rates of rent were charged the blacks who rented them. The rates that blacks were paying were high enough that they could have afforded to buy property, there or in the suburbs, and they been allowed to do so.

Another problem of the public housing is that the cities were handed the responsibility of maintaining the federally-built public housing. A good many cities neglected the property and it deteriorated. Where cities did maintain the property, the housing is still in good condition. They may not be choice rental units, but they are at least fairly good.

Over time, public housing authorities changed the demographics of the public housing units -- shifting away from small working families and the elderly, to welfare families with several children apiece. As the children grew from toddlers to teen agers, the number of people (and teens, particularly) in the public housing units passed the critical density point, after which social chaos results. Social chaos plus neglected maintenance produced a fast downward spiral, and before long the public housing units were ruined.

In Chicago, and other cities where neglect and density produced disaster, the public housing units have been mostly demolished. What happened to the residents? Section 8 housing, presumably, and that is spread over a wide area. Nobody knows for sure what happened to all the former tenants.

Cabrini Green, very inconveniently located close to the Magnificent Mile high end shopping strip (North Michigan Ave.) has been torn down and new units of low-rise middle-income housing has replaced it. Well thank heavens for that! I mean, who wants to come out of Neiman Marcus and get panhandled (or worse? Give the poor folks in the upper class a break.

It isn't the case that the residents of public housing had no moral agency in wrecking their homes. Some of them engaged in criminal predation while others resisted the criminals. Unfortunately, the criminals won.

Can we count the millions spent (billions in current dollars) as reparations?

Should your wealth be confiscated to recompense someone else? — Andrew4Handel

Were we to have a fair economic system, then a good share of the wealth the 1% has accumulated in just the last 40 years -- at the expense of the large majority of workers -- would, yes, be confiscated. Ripped right out of their greedy hands.

So, that's why it's the system that needs to be changed -- not just fleecing a few people. I have no problem with fleecing the 1%; I don't want them recovering their unfair share.

inherited privilege — Andrew4Handel

Of course we inherit all sorts of biological traits, but privilege isn't one of them. What gives a person privilege is money. If I take away every last dime belonging to Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, or Bill Gates (pick your favorite billionaire) and leave them flat out impoverished on the street, they won't have many privileges. Come to think of it, why don't we do just that?

You were systemically disadvantaged in a number of ways: by class, race, religion, psychology, and social traits. Maybe sexual orientation? Cut race out and most Americans have been disadvantaged on the same basis. Most Americans? Most Americans are working class, and the working class has been systematically exploited since the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock.