Zone1 Broad-brush reparations to all blacks is unconstituional

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Can you ask ChatGPT to tell you how much you are owed in reparations? And what ChatGPT’s justification for that number is?

You should probably stop talking to me and converse with ChatGPT directly.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

if not white peoples money, tell us where the money will come from.

Stop talking to me

 

[el midgetron]

But in 1980, the government of the United States decided reparations were due to the Sioux Nation for what was done to them in the 1800’s. They awarded the Sioux nation 105 million dollars.

That’s a specific thing, involving specific treatise, and a specific people. Not a nebulous “slavery” of “black people”. Are black ancestors of black slave masters also entitled to reparations?

 

[el midgetron]

Stop talking to me

Who the hell is talking to you? I’ve asked you point blank questions you refuse to answer. I may as well be pissing in the wind. Shut up or tell me who is going to pay the bill for reparations.

 

[el midgetron]

 

[MarathonMike]

Foxfyre said:
I just explained that no black person living today can demonstrate any damages to himself/herself or any others due to laws that existed sixty years ago. Not when thousands/millions of black people rose above those handicaps and accomplished themselves as well as any other people.

Foxfyre can't explain anything. If blacks rose so much why do whites still have 15 times more wealth than blacks. Blacks had 2 percent of the national wealth when freed from slavery and 2.7 percent of the wealth now. There are something like 20,000 black families, 400 have a net worth of 1 million or more. That's 2 percent. You should not try engaging blacks in discussions when you don't know the facts.

As long as you play victim, whine for reparations and blame ******, Blacks will always under-perform Whites AS A WHOLE. Take some responsibility, face up to your problems, demand better from your DEMOCRATIC leadership. That is the message of Pastor Brooks and others like him who are rejecting the Al Sharpton/IM2 school of Black victimhood.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

As long as you play victim, whine for reparations and blame ******, Blacks will always under-perform Whites AS A WHOLE. Take some responsibility, face up to your problems, demand better from your DEMOCRATIC leadership. That is the message of Pastor Brooks and others like him who are rejecting the Al Sharpton/IM2 school of Black victimhood.

Why don't you take charge of your own life, face your own problems instead of talking down to people who are more knowledgeable than you are about the subject matter at hand.

And forget underperforming whites as a whole, we've already demonstrated our ability to out perform the delusional racist whites who post their nonsense here all of the time.

Have you never heard anyone say "why would you take advice from someone who isn't doing better than you? And preferably, not just by a little"

 

[IM2]

As long as you play victim, whine for reparations and blame ******, Blacks will always under-perform Whites AS A WHOLE. Take some responsibility, face up to your problems, demand better from your DEMOCRATIC leadership. That is the message of Pastor Brooks and others like him who are rejecting the Al Sharpton/IM2 school of Black victimhood.

Wrong.

Mike,

Newsvine is being kind. I won't be. Why don't you just STHU? All you do is repeat the same dumb white right wing oblivious to your own history malarkey. Try actually living by the words you post and take the responsibility you have as a white person to end white racism. You find one black token and try using him as some example

Pastor Brooks didn't make it on the list of Chicagos black men of achievement. That's because building another community center with a job training program is not what blacks in Chicago need. He raised almost 20 million and had he done what I suggested, he would have made the list.

So nobody wants tio read your sermons about what blacks need to do. We're doing what we need to do and that is telling whites like you to shut up and work on ending white acism.

 

[Foxfyre]

Damages are presumed, just like they are presumed for certain torts although reparations are not civil law.

I could presume that you have deprived me of life, liberty, happiness, property or whatever I chose to presume. I could presume great harm to myself and my progeny because of discrimination and unfair treatment of women back in the day. But proving such harm would be impossible. And awarding me compensation would be ludicrous as well as insulting that anyone would assume I was incapable of taking care of myself.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why do you think that you & Lisa as well as the rest of your ilk, would be expected to ante-up to pay reparations to Black people in America. Reparations are paid by the government because the government was responsible for creating and enforcing laws, policies, procedures, social more, etc. that were racially discriminatory and dangerous to the lives of Black people in America. You all are NOT the government.

And before you start in on "I don't want my taxes going for blah blah blah", well I don't necessarily want my taxes going toward paying for aid to Ukraine or to the Israeli government, but I don't get a say in those matters.

Honey, you really REALLY need a crash course in civics. Government has nothing, absolutely nothing that it did not confiscate from the people or put on their credit card. Every dime the government spends on ANYTHING has to be either on credit on on the backs of the taxpayers.

 

[Hector12]

So you are unable or unwilling to answer the questions I asked? Then I guess their BS worked on you huh?

As I previously indicated, many of the things that were done to the Black women in the movie "Hidden Figures" were legal at the time depicted under federal law but are now unlawful due to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. An amendment to the act added gender as a protected class which is one of the reasons that more white women benefitted from affirmative action than Black people overall. The movie depicted

1. Unequal pay for the work the "computers" (the Black women) did. Mrs. Johnson let the audience know that they were getting paid less when she stated to the character played by Kevin Cosner who was chewing her out about her daily restroom breaks "they don't pay us enough to afford a string of pearls" after a review of the dress code revealed that a simple string of pearls was allowable. That's why when Mrs. Johnson got married, the wedding gift from her manager of a string of pearls was significant.
   
   
2. Disparate treatment - the Black women being treated differently (less favorably) that the white women or in the case of Mary Jackson, the white male engineers:
   
   Karl Zielinski: Mary, a person with an engineer's mind should be an engineer. You can't be a computer the rest of your life.
   Mary Jackson: Mr. Zielinski, I'm a negro woman. I'm not gonna entertain the impossible.
   Karl Zielinski: And I'm a Polish Jew whose parents died in a Nazi prison camp. Now I'm standing beneath a spaceship that's going to carry an astronaut to the stars. I think we can say we are living the impossible. Let me ask you, if you were a white male, would you wish to be an engineer?
   Mary Jackson: I wouldn't have to. I'd already be one.
   -- Mary Jackson
   
   Also Dorothy Vaughan had been doing the work of a manager, but without a manager's title, recognition, and associated pay. Vaughan made sure that when the work she and the Black women she was basically supervising, started becoming computerized, she learned what was needed to know to make sure that she and her girls were invaluable to the company. She taught herself FORTRAN programming and taught the other women it as well. At the end of the movie you see some of the white women being introduced to Dorothy and being told that she could teach them what they needed to know and these women were warmly welcomed.
   
   
3. Disparate impact - that the impact or results of the company's policies and procedures disproportionately negatively impacted the Black female employees. Katherine Johnson having her written research contributions credited to her white male co-worker deprives her of her opportunities to advance within the company while bolstering opportunities for him. This is both disparate treatment and disparate impact. Having one's intellectual contributions stolen and credited to another person is actually considered theft of intellectual property in almost any other scenario.

These are just a few of the things I remember off the top of my head however, being a successful Black woman does not neutralize the bile of intentional racial discrimination and the corresponding hostility and sometimes violence that accompanies such a disposition.

Aside from the hostilities, these specific violations are quantifiable. A person can ascertain the difference between pay and opportunities for white males in the environment portrayed in Hidden Figures and come up with a dollar amount that this form of racial and gender discrimination caused.

So for someone who is white to come along and falsely try to claim that acknowledgement of these acts of discrimination by accepting recompense for it is shameful, is just another act of racism in an attempt to prevent Black people from receiving a small measure of compensation for the government sanctioned abuse towards members of the Black race. The beliefs and attitudes that resulted in a white supremacist society and all of the acts taken to prevent that system from being dismantled is what is truly shameful.

This mindset is as stupid of a strategy as someone who is too proud to accept unemployment compensation that they've earned through decades of work because they consider it a form of welfare.

If you believe that you were never entitled to equal pay for equal work or that it was right for you to be deprived of certain jobs you wanted due to your gender, then by all means, leave that money on table and continue feeling good about yourself.

I, for one, don't consider letting other people unlawfully screw me over as something good. At least not without a fight when possible. Have you never received notification that you're a member of a class action where due to the work of one person, it was discovered that a whole group of people were discriminated against or had their rights violated in some manner or another? If you've ever benefitted from a class action lawsuit in which you were a class member but didn't even have the knowledge that your rights were being violated in order to complain, how is that any different than reparations being received for something far much more egregious?

Lilly Ledbetter lost every single one of her lawsuits brought to try to address the unequal pay situation that she found herself a victim of. Yet her fight for equal pay for herself resulted in a law protecting equal rights for ALL women in the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009:

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009​

Differences in pay that occur because of sex violate the EPA and/or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. In addition, compensation differences based on race, color, religion, national origin, age, disability, genetic information, and/or retaliation also violate laws enforced by EEOC. For more information regarding equal wages because of any of these reasons, please call the EEOC at:​

​

1-800-669-4000​

​

​

So what? By every objective, measurable criterion whites tend to be more intelligent than blacks. Women are usually less motivated to succeed because women prefer successful men, but men do not prefer successful women.

Requiring job applicants to pass mental aptitude tests are said to have "desperate impact" impacts, because whites and Orientals tend to perform better than Negroes. The aptitude tests accurate predict performance levels.

Blacks have higher poverty rates than whites because they have lower IQ averages. They have higher incarceration rates than whites because they have higher crime rates.

 

[AZrailwhale]

So there is a case in 2023 not 70 years ago as you proclaimed.

And no it's not a "just a case", there are a multitude of them but I am not about to spend my time reposting the same information you're already aware of.

And it does not surprise me that you know of two white people whom have prevailed in an EEOC case. It's been documented that whites been more successful in bringing suit under the Civil RIghts Act of 1964 than Black people.

That sounds like the EEOC paid her to go away. If she had a case, she would have gone to trial and got millions from the EEOC, she certainly wouldn’t have settled out of court.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I don't believe that was a lawsuit because the statute of limitations would have lapsed a long time ago.

I remember the article, it was mostly focused on Manhattan Beach returning the property that it had seized under eminent domain.

 

[IM2]

I could presume that you have deprived me of life, liberty, happiness, property or whatever I chose to presume. I could presume great harm to myself and my progeny because of discrimination and unfair treatment of women back in the day. But proving such harm would be impossible. And awarding me compensation would be ludicrous as well as insulting that anyone would assume I was incapable of taking care of myself.

It's been proven.

 

[IM2]

Honey, you really REALLY need a crash course in civics. Government has nothing, absolutely nothing that it did not confiscate from the people or put on their credit card. Every dime the government spends on ANYTHING has to be either on credit on on the backs of the taxpayers.

Well what those like YOU need to learn is that reparations would be paid out of taxes already paid. Whites have recieved at least 8 handouts from the government that blacks helped pay for but did not get to use. So your opposition to reparations is not about equal protectiion, it is about the racist belief that we should be happy ****** brought us here from Africa.

And please don't try using the woman card again. White women were the number 1 beneficiary of Affirmative action.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I could presume that you have deprived me of life, liberty, happiness, property or whatever I chose to presume. I could presume great harm to myself and my progeny because of discrimination and unfair treatment of women back in the day. But proving such harm would be impossible. And awarding me compensation would be ludicrous as well as insulting that anyone would assume I was incapable of taking care of myself.

You are not the party who has the ability to presume damages, the legislative does, but again, paying reparations is not the same thing as bringing a civil lawsuit although some common concepts can help clarify the reasoning behind the decision to pay them:

In certain tort cases, damages may be presumed due to the nature of the harm suffered by the plaintiff. The presumption of damages means that the law assumes that certain types of harm result in measurable losses, even if those losses are not easily quantifiable or proven with specific evidence in a particular case.​

​

In layman's terms, this means that if a person can show that they have been wronged in a way that generally leads to harm or loss, the law may presume that damages have occurred, and the burden of proving the specific amount of damages may shift to the defendant. This is often seen in cases where the harm is clear, but it's challenging for the plaintiff to provide precise evidence of the financial or other losses they have suffered.​

​

For example, in cases of defamation, if someone's reputation is falsely damaged, the law may presume that the person has suffered harm to their reputation, and they may be entitled to damages without having to prove the exact monetary value of the harm. Similarly, in certain cases of intentional torts or statutory violations, damages may be presumed to facilitate the legal process and ensure that wronged parties can obtain some form of compensation.​

And then there is this:

In many legal systems, the authority to establish or presume damages is typically within the domain of the legislature. Legislatures have the power to enact laws and statutes that set forth rules and standards for various legal matters, including the determination of damages in certain types of cases.​

​

When legislatures enact laws, they may specify the types of harms for which damages are presumed or provide guidelines for calculating damages. This can be seen in areas such as consumer protection, employment law, defamation, and other torts where damages may be challenging to quantify precisely. By establishing presumptions, the legislature aims to create a more efficient and predictable legal system.​

​

However, it's important to note that the specific authority to presume damages can vary depending on the legal system and jurisdiction. Different countries and regions may have different approaches to the allocation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Additionally, common law systems and civil law systems may have distinct approaches to the role of statutes in determining damages.​

​

In summary, while the legislature often plays a key role in setting the legal framework for damages, the interpretation and application of these laws, including the presumption of damages, are typically within the purview of the judicial branch. Courts may apply and interpret statutory presumptions in specific cases, ensuring that justice is served based on the facts presented.​

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Honey, you really REALLY need a crash course in civics. Government has nothing, absolutely nothing that it did not confiscate from the people or put on their credit card. Every dime the government spends on ANYTHING has to be either on credit on on the backs of the taxpayers.

My name is not Honey, please don't address me as such.

And as IM2 has repeatedly pointed out Black people have been paying into various system via taxes and other schemes that went to help support the white middle class while being excluded from benefitting from those same programs. Don't you remember in Hidden Figures when Dorthy's son was surprised to discover that Dorothy had taken the FORTRAN programming book from the "white" library and accused her of having stolen it. She hushed him and told him that she wasn't stealing the book that her taxes paid for it and that's when it REALLY clicked for me. Apparently the library for the Black citizens didn't think computer programming books were anything that was needed and we all saw how quickly Dorothy and her son(s) were kicked out of the white library and had the police called on them. Due to the racially discriminatory "separate but equal" BS, it was apparently an arrestable offense for them to be at the library and certainly to not leave it when they demanded that they do so.

I find it mind boggling after having just discussed with another poster his observation that being a racist is not a crime, at least not an arrestable offense, while being Black is.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I remember the article, it was mostly focused on Manhattan Beach returning the property that it had seized under eminent domain.

It was seized upon false pretenses with eminent domain being the pretext.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

That sounds like the EEOC paid her to go away. If she had a case, she would have gone to trial and got millions from the EEOC, she certainly wouldn’t have settled out of court.

The EEOC settles most of its cases. There is always a risk when a case goes to trial as well as costing a whole lot more money. Then if you lose, you could be on the hook for the side's attorney's fees.

As they say, a bird in the hand...a settlement is still a win for the plaintiff.

 

[Lisa558]

White Jews got Federal government assistance like every other white person. Furthermore the holocaust was about 10 years. Jim Crow alone was 100 years.

My grandparents never got government assistance, Plenty of ”white Jews” never got government assistance. Unless of course you mean the free college educations my parents earned - just like the blacks in their class,

And you‘re trying to say that Jim Crowe was worse than the Holocaust because it lasted longer? OMG. Disgusting. There is NO comparison to the horrors and loss of the Jews who survived the Holocaust (and the 6 million who didn’t) to the restrictive laws of Jim Crowe.