70
Racism from Tankie Admin and future Lemmy Developer about how the opinion of certain ethnicities in China doesn't matter
(sh.itjust.works)
this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2023
70 points (86.5% liked)
MeanwhileOnGrad
1337 readers
535 users here now
"Oh, this is calamity! Calamity! Oh no, he's on the floor!"
Welcome to MoG!
Meanwhile On Grad
Documenting hate speech, conspiracy theories, apologia/revisionism, and general tankie behaviour across the fediverse. Memes are welcome!
What is a Tankie?
Alternatively, a detailed blog post about Tankies.
(caution of biased source)
Basic Rules:
Sh.itjust.works Instance rules apply! If you are from other instances, please be mindful of the rules. — Basically, don't be a dick.
Hate-Speech — You should be familiar with this one already; practically all instances have the same rules on hate speech.
Apologia — (Using the Modern terminology for Apologia) No Defending, Denying, Justifying, Bolstering, or Differentiating authoritarian acts or endeavours, whether be a Pro-CCP viewpoint, Stalinism, Islamic Terrorism or any variation of Tankie Ideology.
Revisionism — No downplaying or denying atrocities past and present. Calling Tankies shills, foreign/federal agents, or bots also falls under this rule. Extremists exist. They are real. Do not call them shills or fake users as it handwaves their extremism.
Tankies can explain their views but may be criticised or attacked for them. Any slight infraction on the rules above will immediately earn a warning and possibly a ban.
Off-topic Discussion — Do not discuss unrelated topics to the point of derailing the thread. Stay focused on the direct content of the post as opposed to arguing.
You'll be warned if you're violating the instance and community rules. Continuing poor behaviour after being warned will result in a ban or removal of your comments. Bans typically only last 24 hours, but each subsequent infraction will double the amount. Depending on the content, the ban time may be increased. You may request an unban at any time.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
See, here's where my problem comes in - I have no issue with punishing those actually involved, but how many degrees of separation are we pursuing here? I don't find the idea of playing genealogist for the sake of determining whose wealth gets seized appealing. None of us choose to be born who we are - we only choose our actions. The time for that kind of justice is, sadly, long past, even if having every slaver hanged and every freedman granted their property would have been a dream end to the Civil War, instead of the nightmare we ended up with.
No, at this point, the only just means of restitution is necessarily a broad and societal correction rather than attempts at seizing individual property - that is to say, the government should use the resources at its disposal to attempt to correct existing racial wealth disparities rather than try to identify the descendants of the guilty who originally caused it and take it out of their metaphorical hides.
I mean, man, I'm probably clear, since even my white ancestors were post-Civil War immigrants, but that doesn't, and shouldn't, matter. It's a duty to support equitable redistribution of wealth to eliminate racial disparities as a human being and as a countryman, not as someone with white or white slaver ancestors. This started with bigotry - it must end with unity. All of us have a duty to each other, to raise up those who are kept in unequal condition, to stand with those who are isolated, to refuse cooperation to the ideologically prejudiced.
I tend to take a more individualist view of things. I agree that we have some level of duty to each other, but I don't believe that duty should be enforceable with anything stronger than social pressure. As such, I feel that taxation for collective benefit is fundamentally unjust.
However, unlike right-libertarians, I'm not okay with class stratification. We need to be actively dismantling the power structures that maintain the disparities in our society. I believe that in doing so, we'll find that taxation isn't actually necessary, and that we can have a society which is both voluntary and reasonably equal.
It seems like we're largely in agreement here in practical terms. However on principle, confiscating stolen wealth that someone has been given isn't a punishment, since they were never entitled to it in the first place.
But how far away do we judge it to be given? That blood money wasn't just sitting around - it was used to undertake countless projects. Is the architect who was paid for his work now in debt? Is the otherwise-uninvolved merchant of post-war goods subject to seizure (ignoring the enormous problem of Jim Crow and complicity there, for the sake of the argument in the abstract)? His kids? His kids' kids? His employees? All of them were paid with money stolen from the sweat, toil, tears, and blood of slaves. Generational wealth and the generation of wealth is not a simple matter like "This is your great-great grandfather's watch, here you go", and I don't think it can be, even just in principle, resolved by the same methods that immediate theft can. There are too many degrees of separation involved even just in inheritance from 5+ generations ago.
For a more modern example, if man robs a bank, uses the money to put his kids through college, and only after they graduate, he's caught and is killed in a shootout with the police, is it moral to suddenly saddle the kids with the debt of their college years? What about the earnings they made afterwards? Are they illegitimate too? They were only made possible by the expenditure of the illegitimately acquired wealth.
None of this is meant to assert that we disagree strongly, I just love discussing hypotheticals, abstracts, and principles.
Lines do get blurry, and that causes real problems with trying to ensure a just outcome. No real way around that. However, sometimes things are more clear cut. If the plantation (or at least the land it was on) is still in the family, maybe it shouldn't be anymore?
However, there's an argument to be made that such a confiscation would be too sudden and severe of a shift in the social contract. I still think it should be considered, though. Of course, I also think we shouldn't allow absentee land ownership in the first place.