The Maryland Reparations Commission has been enacted into law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Maryland Reparations Commission has been enacted into law. Let’s clarify what the Civil Rights movement and the the 1968 Civil Rights Act aimed for:

- it was a promise to future generations that our government would never again prioritize one race over another.

This bill (now a Maryland law) undermines the unifying purpose of the Civil Rights movement.

It's hard to be "unified" when a major group in the US is still feeling the lingering effects of systemic racism.

If you don't want to prioritize one race over another, then everyone should dump ALL of their wealth together and then split it evenly across everyone in the US. We can start over so that white people aren't continued to be prioritized over everyone else - we all start off equal.

You do realize the wealthiest racial group in the US isn't white, don't you?

Uhm what? Where did you come up with that tid bit?

Asian median wealth is significantly higher than white median wealth in the US. Did you not know this? Would you like me to share some references?

And they all came here with nothing other than willingness to work hard and make themselves better.

You can't be THIS stupid!!!!!! Do you know anything about the history of Asians in this country? Particularly the Chinese?

Also, and please go into as much detail as you can, how can a slave make money and make himself better? I'll wait.

It's 2025, not 1865 or 1964. Where are the slaves?

In China making your iphone in sweatshops

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are Native Americans always left out of the discussion of reparations? Is slavery that much more serious than genocide?

I'd rather pay Native Americans.

That tracks.

Racist MFer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I understand it, the goal of the Commission is to explore options. That’s it.
So many people here are responding as though individuals are going to be handed fistfuls of money. There’s relatively little discussion of community remedies and interventions for harms that were done to communities — something that I’m guessing might be more realistic IF — big IF here — any financial remedies are actually proposed at any point.

Some people argue that current citizens are possibly going to be punished for harms that they in no way caused themselves.
Personally, my view of reparations is one that examines options, and looks to remedies that attempt to ameliorate the historic harms. For decades, Black people paid taxes that supported amenities that they and their children were unable to use — from schools and educational institutions to swimming pools, to communities with restricted covenants. Perhaps community investment might be a fair intervention, at least as a start.

Well said. It’s very telling that people jump to conclusions like ”fistfuls of cash”.

It's not "very telling", it's merely discerning. Dressing up a cash grab as some kind of moral imperative, with zero actual logical reasoning, is nothi8ng more than opportunism by people who are undeserving. Those who might have once deserved compensation for harm are long-departed. Water under the bridge, not wrongs which can reasonably be redressed today. Anyone hoping for present-day "reparations" for harms done to others long ago would merely be beneficiaries of a windfall paid for by people who have no responsibility themselves for the actions complained of.

The whole concept of "reparations" in this context is an absurdity.

It's hilarious that you think slavery and its impacts are all water under the bridge. That tells me you have no idea what you are talking about.

Also: How come this only applies to Black people and slavery, but when other groups demand and get reparations for their economic harm, that's ok?

No one was enslaved by the Maryland or Federal government. The slaves deserve reparations argument is a distraction at least and misrepresentation at the worst.

The reparations con is simply intellectually dishonest. No living person can demonstrate any nexus between their present situation and government policies of past centuries. The argument is a logical fallacy, dependent upon irrelevant premises to reach a desired conclusion, i.e.,

1. Some people today are poor.
2. Some other people were enslaved in the past
3. Ergo, poor people today are poor because some other people were enslaved in the past.

The proponents of this scam need to take Logic 101.

Please start off your logic recognizing that the harms didn't end when slavery ended. There was another century's worth of government actions meant to sideline Black Americans. At best. And to deliberately impoverish them at worst.

Bring on the facts which lead inexorably and convincingly to anyone alive today having been harmed in some measurable and quantifiable manner by centuries-old government actions which may or may not have affected any particular long-dead people.

Centuries old?

Jim Crow
Redlining
Discrimination in education, employment, justice

Where is the "justice" is taxing people who did nothing wrong to compensate people who had no wrongs done to them, but whose ancestors may, or may not, have been wronged by other people in some other era? Quite a stretch, and frankly morally and ethically unsupportable. It's peculiar how only a specific racial group here in the U.S., believes they should be compensated for such distance and debatable harms done to unknown others a long time ago. Why are they more entitled than any other people whose ancestors lost out to people in past centuries who were stronger, more socially advantaged,better educated, wealthier, of a different ethnic or racial group?

Anyone with this line of thinking should be taxed extra for being a vile POS.

You are exactly why we need DEI and reparations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Maryland Reparations Commission has been enacted into law. Let’s clarify what the Civil Rights movement and the the 1968 Civil Rights Act aimed for:

- it was a promise to future generations that our government would never again prioritize one race over another.

This bill (now a Maryland law) undermines the unifying purpose of the Civil Rights movement.

It's hard to be "unified" when a major group in the US is still feeling the lingering effects of systemic racism.

If you don't want to prioritize one race over another, then everyone should dump ALL of their wealth together and then split it evenly across everyone in the US. We can start over so that white people aren't continued to be prioritized over everyone else - we all start off equal.

You do realize the wealthiest racial group in the US isn't white, don't you?

Uhm what? Where did you come up with that tid bit?

Asian median wealth is significantly higher than white median wealth in the US. Did you not know this? Would you like me to share some references?

And they all came here with nothing other than willingness to work hard and make themselves better.

You can't be THIS stupid!!!!!! Do you know anything about the history of Asians in this country? Particularly the Chinese?

Also, and please go into as much detail as you can, how can a slave make money and make himself better? I'll wait.

It's 2025, not 1865 or 1964. Where are the slaves?

The the MAryland Commission will surely include those Chinese workers in their quest for reparations, right?
In China making your iphone in sweatshops

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I understand it, the goal of the Commission is to explore options. That’s it.
So many people here are responding as though individuals are going to be handed fistfuls of money. There’s relatively little discussion of community remedies and interventions for harms that were done to communities — something that I’m guessing might be more realistic IF — big IF here — any financial remedies are actually proposed at any point.

Some people argue that current citizens are possibly going to be punished for harms that they in no way caused themselves.
Personally, my view of reparations is one that examines options, and looks to remedies that attempt to ameliorate the historic harms. For decades, Black people paid taxes that supported amenities that they and their children were unable to use — from schools and educational institutions to swimming pools, to communities with restricted covenants. Perhaps community investment might be a fair intervention, at least as a start.

Well said. It’s very telling that people jump to conclusions like ”fistfuls of cash”.

It's not "very telling", it's merely discerning. Dressing up a cash grab as some kind of moral imperative, with zero actual logical reasoning, is nothi8ng more than opportunism by people who are undeserving. Those who might have once deserved compensation for harm are long-departed. Water under the bridge, not wrongs which can reasonably be redressed today. Anyone hoping for present-day "reparations" for harms done to others long ago would merely be beneficiaries of a windfall paid for by people who have no responsibility themselves for the actions complained of.

The whole concept of "reparations" in this context is an absurdity.

It's hilarious that you think slavery and its impacts are all water under the bridge. That tells me you have no idea what you are talking about.

Also: How come this only applies to Black people and slavery, but when other groups demand and get reparations for their economic harm, that's ok?

No one was enslaved by the Maryland or Federal government. The slaves deserve reparations argument is a distraction at least and misrepresentation at the worst.

The reparations con is simply intellectually dishonest. No living person can demonstrate any nexus between their present situation and government policies of past centuries. The argument is a logical fallacy, dependent upon irrelevant premises to reach a desired conclusion, i.e.,

1. Some people today are poor.
2. Some other people were enslaved in the past
3. Ergo, poor people today are poor because some other people were enslaved in the past.

The proponents of this scam need to take Logic 101.

Please start off your logic recognizing that the harms didn't end when slavery ended. There was another century's worth of government actions meant to sideline Black Americans. At best. And to deliberately impoverish them at worst.

Bring on the facts which lead inexorably and convincingly to anyone alive today having been harmed in some measurable and quantifiable manner by centuries-old government actions which may or may not have affected any particular long-dead people.

Centuries old?

Jim Crow
Redlining
Discrimination in education, employment, justice

Where is the "justice" is taxing people who did nothing wrong to compensate people who had no wrongs done to them, but whose ancestors may, or may not, have been wronged by other people in some other era? Quite a stretch, and frankly morally and ethically unsupportable. It's peculiar how only a specific racial group here in the U.S., believes they should be compensated for such distance and debatable harms done to unknown others a long time ago. Why are they more entitled than any other people whose ancestors lost out to people in past centuries who were stronger, more socially advantaged,better educated, wealthier, of a different ethnic or racial group?

Anyone with this line of thinking should be taxed extra for being a vile POS.

You are exactly why we need DEI and reparations.

Gimme my free money!!!!

[Anonymous]

That's what welfare . Medicare, snap and section 8 are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I understand it, the goal of the Commission is to explore options. That’s it.
So many people here are responding as though individuals are going to be handed fistfuls of money. There’s relatively little discussion of community remedies and interventions for harms that were done to communities — something that I’m guessing might be more realistic IF — big IF here — any financial remedies are actually proposed at any point.

Some people argue that current citizens are possibly going to be punished for harms that they in no way caused themselves.
Personally, my view of reparations is one that examines options, and looks to remedies that attempt to ameliorate the historic harms. For decades, Black people paid taxes that supported amenities that they and their children were unable to use — from schools and educational institutions to swimming pools, to communities with restricted covenants. Perhaps community investment might be a fair intervention, at least as a start.

Well said. It’s very telling that people jump to conclusions like ”fistfuls of cash”.

It's not "very telling", it's merely discerning. Dressing up a cash grab as some kind of moral imperative, with zero actual logical reasoning, is nothi8ng more than opportunism by people who are undeserving. Those who might have once deserved compensation for harm are long-departed. Water under the bridge, not wrongs which can reasonably be redressed today. Anyone hoping for present-day "reparations" for harms done to others long ago would merely be beneficiaries of a windfall paid for by people who have no responsibility themselves for the actions complained of.

The whole concept of "reparations" in this context is an absurdity.

It's hilarious that you think slavery and its impacts are all water under the bridge. That tells me you have no idea what you are talking about.

Also: How come this only applies to Black people and slavery, but when other groups demand and get reparations for their economic harm, that's ok?

No one was enslaved by the Maryland or Federal government. The slaves deserve reparations argument is a distraction at least and misrepresentation at the worst.

The reparations con is simply intellectually dishonest. No living person can demonstrate any nexus between their present situation and government policies of past centuries. The argument is a logical fallacy, dependent upon irrelevant premises to reach a desired conclusion, i.e.,

1. Some people today are poor.
2. Some other people were enslaved in the past
3. Ergo, poor people today are poor because some other people were enslaved in the past.

The proponents of this scam need to take Logic 101.

Please start off your logic recognizing that the harms didn't end when slavery ended. There was another century's worth of government actions meant to sideline Black Americans. At best. And to deliberately impoverish them at worst.

Bring on the facts which lead inexorably and convincingly to anyone alive today having been harmed in some measurable and quantifiable manner by centuries-old government actions which may or may not have affected any particular long-dead people.

Centuries old?

Jim Crow
Redlining
Discrimination in education, employment, justice

Where is the "justice" is taxing people who did nothing wrong to compensate people who had no wrongs done to them, but whose ancestors may, or may not, have been wronged by other people in some other era? Quite a stretch, and frankly morally and ethically unsupportable. It's peculiar how only a specific racial group here in the U.S., believes they should be compensated for such distance and debatable harms done to unknown others a long time ago. Why are they more entitled than any other people whose ancestors lost out to people in past centuries who were stronger, more socially advantaged,better educated, wealthier, of a different ethnic or racial group?

Anyone with this line of thinking should be taxed extra for being a vile POS.

You are exactly why we need DEI and reparations.

We're so special, unique, and clearly deserving through our own efforts and initiative, even if those traits manifest themselves in requests for entirely innocent people to reach into their pockets to give us money we didn't earn and don't deserve. Effort and initiative directed at growing our own wealth would be work for suckers when we can just get other racial groups to pay us! What a deal! Who wouldn't want in on that? Sorry, you only qualify if you belong to one racial group, others need not apply, no matter how poor or oppressed their ancestors were.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I understand it, the goal of the Commission is to explore options. That’s it.
So many people here are responding as though individuals are going to be handed fistfuls of money. There’s relatively little discussion of community remedies and interventions for harms that were done to communities — something that I’m guessing might be more realistic IF — big IF here — any financial remedies are actually proposed at any point.

Some people argue that current citizens are possibly going to be punished for harms that they in no way caused themselves.
Personally, my view of reparations is one that examines options, and looks to remedies that attempt to ameliorate the historic harms. For decades, Black people paid taxes that supported amenities that they and their children were unable to use — from schools and educational institutions to swimming pools, to communities with restricted covenants. Perhaps community investment might be a fair intervention, at least as a start.

Well said. It’s very telling that people jump to conclusions like ”fistfuls of cash”.

It's not "very telling", it's merely discerning. Dressing up a cash grab as some kind of moral imperative, with zero actual logical reasoning, is nothi8ng more than opportunism by people who are undeserving. Those who might have once deserved compensation for harm are long-departed. Water under the bridge, not wrongs which can reasonably be redressed today. Anyone hoping for present-day "reparations" for harms done to others long ago would merely be beneficiaries of a windfall paid for by people who have no responsibility themselves for the actions complained of.

The whole concept of "reparations" in this context is an absurdity.

It's hilarious that you think slavery and its impacts are all water under the bridge. That tells me you have no idea what you are talking about.

Also: How come this only applies to Black people and slavery, but when other groups demand and get reparations for their economic harm, that's ok?

No one was enslaved by the Maryland or Federal government. The slaves deserve reparations argument is a distraction at least and misrepresentation at the worst.

The reparations con is simply intellectually dishonest. No living person can demonstrate any nexus between their present situation and government policies of past centuries. The argument is a logical fallacy, dependent upon irrelevant premises to reach a desired conclusion, i.e.,

1. Some people today are poor.
2. Some other people were enslaved in the past
3. Ergo, poor people today are poor because some other people were enslaved in the past.

The proponents of this scam need to take Logic 101.

Please start off your logic recognizing that the harms didn't end when slavery ended. There was another century's worth of government actions meant to sideline Black Americans. At best. And to deliberately impoverish them at worst.

Bring on the facts which lead inexorably and convincingly to anyone alive today having been harmed in some measurable and quantifiable manner by centuries-old government actions which may or may not have affected any particular long-dead people.

Centuries old?

Jim Crow
Redlining
Discrimination in education, employment, justice

Where is the "justice" is taxing people who did nothing wrong to compensate people who had no wrongs done to them, but whose ancestors may, or may not, have been wronged by other people in some other era? Quite a stretch, and frankly morally and ethically unsupportable. It's peculiar how only a specific racial group here in the U.S., believes they should be compensated for such distance and debatable harms done to unknown others a long time ago. Why are they more entitled than any other people whose ancestors lost out to people in past centuries who were stronger, more socially advantaged,better educated, wealthier, of a different ethnic or racial group?

Anyone with this line of thinking should be taxed extra for being a vile POS.

You are exactly why we need DEI and reparations.

Gimme my free money!!!!

Who decides which facial features get you in? What shade of skin/ nose- lip thickness/ hair texture combo and degrees of variance get you qualified?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I understand it, the goal of the Commission is to explore options. That’s it.
So many people here are responding as though individuals are going to be handed fistfuls of money. There’s relatively little discussion of community remedies and interventions for harms that were done to communities — something that I’m guessing might be more realistic IF — big IF here — any financial remedies are actually proposed at any point.

Some people argue that current citizens are possibly going to be punished for harms that they in no way caused themselves.
Personally, my view of reparations is one that examines options, and looks to remedies that attempt to ameliorate the historic harms. For decades, Black people paid taxes that supported amenities that they and their children were unable to use — from schools and educational institutions to swimming pools, to communities with restricted covenants. Perhaps community investment might be a fair intervention, at least as a start.

Well said. It’s very telling that people jump to conclusions like ”fistfuls of cash”.

It's not "very telling", it's merely discerning. Dressing up a cash grab as some kind of moral imperative, with zero actual logical reasoning, is nothi8ng more than opportunism by people who are undeserving. Those who might have once deserved compensation for harm are long-departed. Water under the bridge, not wrongs which can reasonably be redressed today. Anyone hoping for present-day "reparations" for harms done to others long ago would merely be beneficiaries of a windfall paid for by people who have no responsibility themselves for the actions complained of.

The whole concept of "reparations" in this context is an absurdity.

It's hilarious that you think slavery and its impacts are all water under the bridge. That tells me you have no idea what you are talking about.

Also: How come this only applies to Black people and slavery, but when other groups demand and get reparations for their economic harm, that's ok?

No one was enslaved by the Maryland or Federal government. The slaves deserve reparations argument is a distraction at least and misrepresentation at the worst.

The reparations con is simply intellectually dishonest. No living person can demonstrate any nexus between their present situation and government policies of past centuries. The argument is a logical fallacy, dependent upon irrelevant premises to reach a desired conclusion, i.e.,

1. Some people today are poor.
2. Some other people were enslaved in the past
3. Ergo, poor people today are poor because some other people were enslaved in the past.

The proponents of this scam need to take Logic 101.

Please start off your logic recognizing that the harms didn't end when slavery ended. There was another century's worth of government actions meant to sideline Black Americans. At best. And to deliberately impoverish them at worst.

Bring on the facts which lead inexorably and convincingly to anyone alive today having been harmed in some measurable and quantifiable manner by centuries-old government actions which may or may not have affected any particular long-dead people.

Centuries old?

Jim Crow
Redlining
Discrimination in education, employment, justice

Where is the "justice" is taxing people who did nothing wrong to compensate people who had no wrongs done to them, but whose ancestors may, or may not, have been wronged by other people in some other era? Quite a stretch, and frankly morally and ethically unsupportable. It's peculiar how only a specific racial group here in the U.S., believes they should be compensated for such distance and debatable harms done to unknown others a long time ago. Why are they more entitled than any other people whose ancestors lost out to people in past centuries who were stronger, more socially advantaged,better educated, wealthier, of a different ethnic or racial group?

Anyone with this line of thinking should be taxed extra for being a vile POS.

You are exactly why we need DEI and reparations.

Gimme my free money!!!!

Who decides which facial features get you in? What shade of skin/ nose- lip thickness/ hair texture combo and degrees of variance get you qualified?

If you have straight hair, very dark skin, and a fat nose but thin lips do you qualify ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I understand it, the goal of the Commission is to explore options. That’s it.
So many people here are responding as though individuals are going to be handed fistfuls of money. There’s relatively little discussion of community remedies and interventions for harms that were done to communities — something that I’m guessing might be more realistic IF — big IF here — any financial remedies are actually proposed at any point.

Some people argue that current citizens are possibly going to be punished for harms that they in no way caused themselves.
Personally, my view of reparations is one that examines options, and looks to remedies that attempt to ameliorate the historic harms. For decades, Black people paid taxes that supported amenities that they and their children were unable to use — from schools and educational institutions to swimming pools, to communities with restricted covenants. Perhaps community investment might be a fair intervention, at least as a start.

Well said. It’s very telling that people jump to conclusions like ”fistfuls of cash”.

It's not "very telling", it's merely discerning. Dressing up a cash grab as some kind of moral imperative, with zero actual logical reasoning, is nothi8ng more than opportunism by people who are undeserving. Those who might have once deserved compensation for harm are long-departed. Water under the bridge, not wrongs which can reasonably be redressed today. Anyone hoping for present-day "reparations" for harms done to others long ago would merely be beneficiaries of a windfall paid for by people who have no responsibility themselves for the actions complained of.

The whole concept of "reparations" in this context is an absurdity.

It's hilarious that you think slavery and its impacts are all water under the bridge. That tells me you have no idea what you are talking about.

Also: How come this only applies to Black people and slavery, but when other groups demand and get reparations for their economic harm, that's ok?

No one was enslaved by the Maryland or Federal government. The slaves deserve reparations argument is a distraction at least and misrepresentation at the worst.

The reparations con is simply intellectually dishonest. No living person can demonstrate any nexus between their present situation and government policies of past centuries. The argument is a logical fallacy, dependent upon irrelevant premises to reach a desired conclusion, i.e.,

1. Some people today are poor.
2. Some other people were enslaved in the past
3. Ergo, poor people today are poor because some other people were enslaved in the past.

The proponents of this scam need to take Logic 101.

Some Black families can demonstrate seizures of their property by a government entity under eminent domain. Those people are already entitled to reparations if they can prove their case.

Claiming "I was systematically and negatively impacted by government policy" would set a precedent that would open the flood gates for every fringe group.

Henrietta lacks family proved it and the poor billionaires had to pay them a few measly millions.

Does this decision mean all Blacks deserve reparations because of one specific transgression?

"One specific transgresson"?

That's how you would describe slavery that happened to an entire population of people who were kidnapped, brought here against their will, physically, emotionally and sexually abused and entered into forced labor with no compensation? That whole sytem that endured for over 200 hundred years?

That is not a "specific transgression."

Stay on topic. You brought up the Lacks case. It was resolved. It has no bearing on slavery prior to 1865.

Again, neither the federal government nor Maryland government held slaves. There's no legal reason for those governments to pay reparations to descendants of enslaved peoples. Reparations, if any, are owed by the private citizens and institutions that enslaved people. I believe most public institutions that held slaves have already made reparations.

OK, how about the William Dove case?

Don't poison your wife?

No the Maryland William Dove not the England William Dove

The Dove family has a legitimate case. This doesn't mean every Black person in Maryland can piggyback on this claim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I understand it, the goal of the Commission is to explore options. That’s it.
So many people here are responding as though individuals are going to be handed fistfuls of money. There’s relatively little discussion of community remedies and interventions for harms that were done to communities — something that I’m guessing might be more realistic IF — big IF here — any financial remedies are actually proposed at any point.

Some people argue that current citizens are possibly going to be punished for harms that they in no way caused themselves.
Personally, my view of reparations is one that examines options, and looks to remedies that attempt to ameliorate the historic harms. For decades, Black people paid taxes that supported amenities that they and their children were unable to use — from schools and educational institutions to swimming pools, to communities with restricted covenants. Perhaps community investment might be a fair intervention, at least as a start.

Well said. It’s very telling that people jump to conclusions like ”fistfuls of cash”.

It's not "very telling", it's merely discerning. Dressing up a cash grab as some kind of moral imperative, with zero actual logical reasoning, is nothi8ng more than opportunism by people who are undeserving. Those who might have once deserved compensation for harm are long-departed. Water under the bridge, not wrongs which can reasonably be redressed today. Anyone hoping for present-day "reparations" for harms done to others long ago would merely be beneficiaries of a windfall paid for by people who have no responsibility themselves for the actions complained of.

The whole concept of "reparations" in this context is an absurdity.

It's hilarious that you think slavery and its impacts are all water under the bridge. That tells me you have no idea what you are talking about.

Also: How come this only applies to Black people and slavery, but when other groups demand and get reparations for their economic harm, that's ok?

No one was enslaved by the Maryland or Federal government. The slaves deserve reparations argument is a distraction at least and misrepresentation at the worst.

The reparations con is simply intellectually dishonest. No living person can demonstrate any nexus between their present situation and government policies of past centuries. The argument is a logical fallacy, dependent upon irrelevant premises to reach a desired conclusion, i.e.,

1. Some people today are poor.
2. Some other people were enslaved in the past
3. Ergo, poor people today are poor because some other people were enslaved in the past.

The proponents of this scam need to take Logic 101.

Some Black families can demonstrate seizures of their property by a government entity under eminent domain. Those people are already entitled to reparations if they can prove their case.

Claiming "I was systematically and negatively impacted by government policy" would set a precedent that would open the flood gates for every fringe group.

Henrietta lacks family proved it and the poor billionaires had to pay them a few measly millions.

Does this decision mean all Blacks deserve reparations because of one specific transgression?

"One specific transgresson"?

That's how you would describe slavery that happened to an entire population of people who were kidnapped, brought here against their will, physically, emotionally and sexually abused and entered into forced labor with no compensation? That whole sytem that endured for over 200 hundred years?

That is not a "specific transgression."

Stay on topic. You brought up the Lacks case. It was resolved. It has no bearing on slavery prior to 1865.

Again, neither the federal government nor Maryland government held slaves. There's no legal reason for those governments to pay reparations to descendants of enslaved peoples. Reparations, if any, are owed by the private citizens and institutions that enslaved people. I believe most public institutions that held slaves have already made reparations.

OK, how about the William Dove case?

Don't poison your wife?

No the Maryland William Dove not the England William Dove

The Dove family has a legitimate case. This doesn't mean every Black person in Maryland can piggyback on this claim.

Dove family is awesome

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I understand it, the goal of the Commission is to explore options. That’s it.
So many people here are responding as though individuals are going to be handed fistfuls of money. There’s relatively little discussion of community remedies and interventions for harms that were done to communities — something that I’m guessing might be more realistic IF — big IF here — any financial remedies are actually proposed at any point.

Some people argue that current citizens are possibly going to be punished for harms that they in no way caused themselves.
Personally, my view of reparations is one that examines options, and looks to remedies that attempt to ameliorate the historic harms. For decades, Black people paid taxes that supported amenities that they and their children were unable to use — from schools and educational institutions to swimming pools, to communities with restricted covenants. Perhaps community investment might be a fair intervention, at least as a start.

Well said. It’s very telling that people jump to conclusions like ”fistfuls of cash”.

It's not "very telling", it's merely discerning. Dressing up a cash grab as some kind of moral imperative, with zero actual logical reasoning, is nothi8ng more than opportunism by people who are undeserving. Those who might have once deserved compensation for harm are long-departed. Water under the bridge, not wrongs which can reasonably be redressed today. Anyone hoping for present-day "reparations" for harms done to others long ago would merely be beneficiaries of a windfall paid for by people who have no responsibility themselves for the actions complained of.

The whole concept of "reparations" in this context is an absurdity.

It's hilarious that you think slavery and its impacts are all water under the bridge. That tells me you have no idea what you are talking about.

Also: How come this only applies to Black people and slavery, but when other groups demand and get reparations for their economic harm, that's ok?

No one was enslaved by the Maryland or Federal government. The slaves deserve reparations argument is a distraction at least and misrepresentation at the worst.

The reparations con is simply intellectually dishonest. No living person can demonstrate any nexus between their present situation and government policies of past centuries. The argument is a logical fallacy, dependent upon irrelevant premises to reach a desired conclusion, i.e.,

1. Some people today are poor.
2. Some other people were enslaved in the past
3. Ergo, poor people today are poor because some other people were enslaved in the past.

The proponents of this scam need to take Logic 101.

Some Black families can demonstrate seizures of their property by a government entity under eminent domain. Those people are already entitled to reparations if they can prove their case.

Claiming "I was systematically and negatively impacted by government policy" would set a precedent that would open the flood gates for every fringe group.

Henrietta lacks family proved it and the poor billionaires had to pay them a few measly millions.

Does this decision mean all Blacks deserve reparations because of one specific transgression?

"One specific transgresson"?

That's how you would describe slavery that happened to an entire population of people who were kidnapped, brought here against their will, physically, emotionally and sexually abused and entered into forced labor with no compensation? That whole sytem that endured for over 200 hundred years?

That is not a "specific transgression."

Stay on topic. You brought up the Lacks case. It was resolved. It has no bearing on slavery prior to 1865.

Again, neither the federal government nor Maryland government held slaves. There's no legal reason for those governments to pay reparations to descendants of enslaved peoples. Reparations, if any, are owed by the private citizens and institutions that enslaved people. I believe most public institutions that held slaves have already made reparations.

OK, how about the William Dove case?

Don't poison your wife?

No the Maryland William Dove not the England William Dove

The Dove family has a legitimate case. This doesn't mean every Black person in Maryland can piggyback on this claim.

So if there are “legitimate” claims they should be addressed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I understand it, the goal of the Commission is to explore options. That’s it.
So many people here are responding as though individuals are going to be handed fistfuls of money. There’s relatively little discussion of community remedies and interventions for harms that were done to communities — something that I’m guessing might be more realistic IF — big IF here — any financial remedies are actually proposed at any point.

Some people argue that current citizens are possibly going to be punished for harms that they in no way caused themselves.
Personally, my view of reparations is one that examines options, and looks to remedies that attempt to ameliorate the historic harms. For decades, Black people paid taxes that supported amenities that they and their children were unable to use — from schools and educational institutions to swimming pools, to communities with restricted covenants. Perhaps community investment might be a fair intervention, at least as a start.

Well said. It’s very telling that people jump to conclusions like ”fistfuls of cash”.

It's not "very telling", it's merely discerning. Dressing up a cash grab as some kind of moral imperative, with zero actual logical reasoning, is nothi8ng more than opportunism by people who are undeserving. Those who might have once deserved compensation for harm are long-departed. Water under the bridge, not wrongs which can reasonably be redressed today. Anyone hoping for present-day "reparations" for harms done to others long ago would merely be beneficiaries of a windfall paid for by people who have no responsibility themselves for the actions complained of.

The whole concept of "reparations" in this context is an absurdity.

It's hilarious that you think slavery and its impacts are all water under the bridge. That tells me you have no idea what you are talking about.

Also: How come this only applies to Black people and slavery, but when other groups demand and get reparations for their economic harm, that's ok?

No one was enslaved by the Maryland or Federal government. The slaves deserve reparations argument is a distraction at least and misrepresentation at the worst.

The reparations con is simply intellectually dishonest. No living person can demonstrate any nexus between their present situation and government policies of past centuries. The argument is a logical fallacy, dependent upon irrelevant premises to reach a desired conclusion, i.e.,

1. Some people today are poor.
2. Some other people were enslaved in the past
3. Ergo, poor people today are poor because some other people were enslaved in the past.

The proponents of this scam need to take Logic 101.

Please start off your logic recognizing that the harms didn't end when slavery ended. There was another century's worth of government actions meant to sideline Black Americans. At best. And to deliberately impoverish them at worst.

Bring on the facts which lead inexorably and convincingly to anyone alive today having been harmed in some measurable and quantifiable manner by centuries-old government actions which may or may not have affected any particular long-dead people.

Centuries old?

Jim Crow
Redlining
Discrimination in education, employment, justice

Where is the "justice" is taxing people who did nothing wrong to compensate people who had no wrongs done to them, but whose ancestors may, or may not, have been wronged by other people in some other era? Quite a stretch, and frankly morally and ethically unsupportable. It's peculiar how only a specific racial group here in the U.S., believes they should be compensated for such distance and debatable harms done to unknown others a long time ago. Why are they more entitled than any other people whose ancestors lost out to people in past centuries who were stronger, more socially advantaged,better educated, wealthier, of a different ethnic or racial group?

Anyone with this line of thinking should be taxed extra for being a vile POS.

You are exactly why we need DEI and reparations.

We're so special, unique, and clearly deserving through our own efforts and initiative, even if those traits manifest themselves in requests for entirely innocent people to reach into their pockets to give us money we didn't earn and don't deserve. Effort and initiative directed at growing our own wealth would be work for suckers when we can just get other racial groups to pay us! What a deal! Who wouldn't want in on that? Sorry, you only qualify if you belong to one racial group, others need not apply, no matter how poor or oppressed their ancestors were.

You continue to prove my point with your vile racist tropes.

People like you were responsible for slavery and racist policies. You should personally foot the bill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I understand it, the goal of the Commission is to explore options. That’s it.
So many people here are responding as though individuals are going to be handed fistfuls of money. There’s relatively little discussion of community remedies and interventions for harms that were done to communities — something that I’m guessing might be more realistic IF — big IF here — any financial remedies are actually proposed at any point.

Some people argue that current citizens are possibly going to be punished for harms that they in no way caused themselves.
Personally, my view of reparations is one that examines options, and looks to remedies that attempt to ameliorate the historic harms. For decades, Black people paid taxes that supported amenities that they and their children were unable to use — from schools and educational institutions to swimming pools, to communities with restricted covenants. Perhaps community investment might be a fair intervention, at least as a start.

Well said. It’s very telling that people jump to conclusions like ”fistfuls of cash”.

It's not "very telling", it's merely discerning. Dressing up a cash grab as some kind of moral imperative, with zero actual logical reasoning, is nothi8ng more than opportunism by people who are undeserving. Those who might have once deserved compensation for harm are long-departed. Water under the bridge, not wrongs which can reasonably be redressed today. Anyone hoping for present-day "reparations" for harms done to others long ago would merely be beneficiaries of a windfall paid for by people who have no responsibility themselves for the actions complained of.

The whole concept of "reparations" in this context is an absurdity.

It's hilarious that you think slavery and its impacts are all water under the bridge. That tells me you have no idea what you are talking about.

Also: How come this only applies to Black people and slavery, but when other groups demand and get reparations for their economic harm, that's ok?

No one was enslaved by the Maryland or Federal government. The slaves deserve reparations argument is a distraction at least and misrepresentation at the worst.

The reparations con is simply intellectually dishonest. No living person can demonstrate any nexus between their present situation and government policies of past centuries. The argument is a logical fallacy, dependent upon irrelevant premises to reach a desired conclusion, i.e.,

1. Some people today are poor.
2. Some other people were enslaved in the past
3. Ergo, poor people today are poor because some other people were enslaved in the past.

The proponents of this scam need to take Logic 101.

Please start off your logic recognizing that the harms didn't end when slavery ended. There was another century's worth of government actions meant to sideline Black Americans. At best. And to deliberately impoverish them at worst.

Bring on the facts which lead inexorably and convincingly to anyone alive today having been harmed in some measurable and quantifiable manner by centuries-old government actions which may or may not have affected any particular long-dead people.

Centuries old?

Jim Crow
Redlining
Discrimination in education, employment, justice

Where is the "justice" is taxing people who did nothing wrong to compensate people who had no wrongs done to them, but whose ancestors may, or may not, have been wronged by other people in some other era? Quite a stretch, and frankly morally and ethically unsupportable. It's peculiar how only a specific racial group here in the U.S., believes they should be compensated for such distance and debatable harms done to unknown others a long time ago. Why are they more entitled than any other people whose ancestors lost out to people in past centuries who were stronger, more socially advantaged,better educated, wealthier, of a different ethnic or racial group?

Anyone with this line of thinking should be taxed extra for being a vile POS.

You are exactly why we need DEI and reparations.

Gimme my free money!!!!

Ok, David Duke.

[Anonymous]

Life is much better when you take ownership of your decisions, rather than viewing yourself as a victim whose poor decisions are someone else's fault.

I've made some good decisions in my life, and some bad ones, and I try to own those decisions and learn from them. I inherited nothing and have had a 40+ hour/week job every day of my adult life.

I think most Americans are like me, including most Black Americans, and are repulsed by the idea that someone would need to give them money to make up for their own failures in life.