https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/san-francisco…
$5mm per person. Reads like an April fool's article. Anyone have any knowledge about this?
Lived in SF in the past and it seemed like a city in total decline. Seems like the loonies are running that town.
| +95 | Are you “less ambitious” for having long term goals outside of NYC | 24 | 16h | |
| +41 | Interviews Are So Fake | 26 | 8m | |
| +33 | 2024 UK Election - Tories finished? | 20 | 1d | |
| +29 | Being Christian in investment banking | 14 | 20h | |
| +26 | Is my boss gaslighting me? | 3 | 6d | |
| +25 | Non-Competes Banned | 18 | 23m | |
| +23 | Sabotaging Peers to Get Ahead? | 34 | 4d | |
| How do I become Sigma | 13 | 1h | ||
| +18 | Moelis has the cutest Analysts? | 4 | 17h | |
| +18 | Best NYC neighborhood for single 30M | 12 | 2d |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
haha its fake news that will never pass. there are lots of clown things happening here, the most recent of which I've been lolling at is the fight over the bay bridge lights funding. i swear people here are so ridic, i kind of want this city to implode so it becomes even cheaper to live in and scares away all the NPC big tech folks
Clown city.
I don't really understand why you're upset. It will obviously never pass, and it's not like the concept of reparations is new. Many states still have laws on the books that explicitly disallow gay marriage (though they're not currently enforceable). Why not focus on that? After all, ridiculous laws that remove the rights of citizens seem prima facie far more objectionable than ridiculous laws which give benefits to citizens.
I'm not that upset I just found this article interesting and slightly ridiculous and wanted to hear people's thoughts. Please don't try to overstate my exasperation in order to make me look unreasonable.
I know this proposal will never pass and that it's more of a statement, but it is a testament to the extent absurd and harmful ideologies have possessed SF and tainted its policies.
I do not understand why you bring gay marriage up. What has that got to do with anything? Classic dissimulation tactic to bring attention away from issues that are uncomfortable and that discredit the liberal camp... FYI I have nothing against it and gay marriage has been a widely covered topic for a very long time so what's the harm in discussing other concerns? Following your logic the discussion of any topic that is subordinate to the issue of gay marriage in importance is futile...
With regards to reparations I don't understand why the existence of precedent discussions regarding the matter invalidate novel discussion, especially when an absurd proposal like this comes out of the blue.
Your comment reeks of such sophistry that I am tempted to think it is a bait or troll post. The unnecessary use of a pretentious term like "prima facie" is the cherry on top. Please do let me know if you are trolling.
It is not "dissimulation" (which isn't an appropriate word in any case) it is merely pointing out the hypocrisy of bringing up a complete nothingburger of an issue when the very reasons reparations are even an intellectual discussion (e.g. the massive and systemic discrimination against certain demographic minorities) is alive and ongoing today all over the place.
As this proposal makes clear, reparations are only a subject in the first place because the United States has a history of enslaving people based on the color of their skin, and then for a century and half more of treating people with dark skin like second class citizens and denying them essential Constitutional rights. Do you agree with that summary of the issue?
Most conservative areas are currently engaged in ongoing and systemic attempts to relegate certain minority groups to second class citizens. What does being gay have to do with marriage? Absolutely nothing, which is why it is insane that many states have laws on their books prohibiting it. In other words, it's no different than Jim Crow, except instead of skin color it is sexual orientation that is being treated as a cause of second class citizenship.
As to the relevance in this discussion, I merely find it somewhat objectionable that you think this topic is worthy of your outrage when all over the country people are trying to take away the rights of millions of Americans, much like the slaver Confederates and their descendants in the "Bible Belt" did over the last century and a half. Your desire to focus on an obvious PR stunt in San Francisco is blinding you to actual oppression happening elsewhere. It is my opinion that if you are focusing on this, and not on the actual legislation being passed elsewhere, then it is you who has a hidden agenda.
It's as if you were on your neighbor's front lawn freaking out about the fact that your neighbor doesn't have a fire extinguisher in their house and what a risk that poses to the neighborhood, while the flames are pouring out of your window.
Dude, the fact that I use appropriate vocabulary that you aren't familiar with, while you are busy misusing words you don't understand, doesn't make it "sophistry". It doesn't seem like you actually know what "sophistry" means, either, since you didn't even bother to refute any of my arguments (and to be clear, "sophistry" means I use false arguments in bad faith to convince you, not... whatever it is you seem to think it means).
Here are my thoughts in bullet format to be more concise:
It's not because you consider this topic to be irrelevant that it is, in fact, irrelevant. Some people might have thoughts and reservations about the matter (and justifiably so) and should be able to discuss them without being patronized and called hypocritical. You seem to think that you are an authority on what should and should not be discussed. Just know you might be wrong in some of your axioms (shocking idea for you, probably) and that your playing moderator for human discussion and debate is slightly presumptuous and potentially harmful.
Yes, slavery and discrimination against minorities were (and are still in some regards) very real and harmful phenomena. The extent to which these phenomena still exist in modern America vs past America is up for debate (one I don't want to engage in with you, as that was not my original intention, even though I don't agree with all the arguments you lay out). That's beside the point. The topic is that of reparations and their viability and moral justifiability as solutions for past ills. Many people don't agree with them and should be able to express that disagreement. The idea of a tax-funded reparation paid for by individuals who have never directly perpetrated acts of oppression (directly) might not sit well with everyone. The idea that SF would contemplate this reparation despite its deficit might also be alarming. As you can see, there can be rational concerns about reparations.
You assume too much. My attitude towards reparations doesn't indicate an overall ignorance of systemic oppression in the US. I am aware there is still a lot of injustice in this country, but that doesn't mean I cannot and should not shift some of my focus toward a policy I think is imprecise and foolish. I also believe people like you weaponize certain injustices to blind people to other wrongdoings. "Pay no mind to reparations because of the oppression happening in other places." Who is being hypocritical and dishonest now?
I know what sophistry means, and I applied it to your comment in good faith. I truly believe your original comment was an underhanded attempt to discredit my concern, exaggerate my reaction, and change the topic because of a hidden ideology that you have now laid bare before me. I was right to call you out to at least make you reveal your true underlying thoughts. In fact, you continue to overstate my outrage and have resorted to ad hominem tactics against my grasp of the English language (not my first language) to further discredit me. You continue to prove me right.
I didn't call it "irrelevant," and it's telling that you've now moved on to putting words in my mouth to justify your terrible argument. You are more than welcome to discuss whatever you wish; no one can stop you, least of all me. But if you persist in focusing on issues like a proposal to give reparations, one that will never become law, then you absolutely open yourself up to a charge of hypocrisy. It is not a serious issue, and I have no problem nor feel any remorse for pointing out that if you are focusing on a PR stunt like this while studiously ignoring the rollback of human and Constitutional rights for millions of Americans, then you deserve some opprobrium. I've made the point in other contexts before, but if your primary concern is to make sure that historically oppressed minorities don't receive recognition or recompense, or that you wish to stifle any discussion of that oppression, at the price of ignoring ongoing oppression, then you are either a fool or have an ulterior motive. Why not focus on actual injustice instead of this shadow of a potential for something you disagree with (which isn't even unjust!)? Of course you can focus on what you wish - but you should be ready to answer the question of why this is your priority.
And I repeat, you seem to be more concerned about the morally justifiable desire to right a past wrong (even if it's modern application might not be fair) than you are about ongoing attacks on human rights elsewhere. That is your prerogative! But as I said above, you should be prepared to explain why it is that an obvious PR stunt in San Francisco is more important to you and more outrageous to your ethics than, say, Texas putting a bounty on drag queens. You've clearly prioritized one over the other, you clearly think the idea of someone having to pay to right a wrong they didn't commit is worse than the state putting a bounty on citizens, and it's perfectly reasonable for me to point that out and ask "why?" If you don't have an answer, maybe it's time you examine your own priorities.
Well, seeing as there are no reparations being paid, nor is there a proposed formula for who gets them or why or how, I don't see anything dishonest or hypocritical about saying "this isn't worth discussion." There isn't anything to discuss, except a vague notion that black Americans have had it very bad for a very long time, and that seems like an unimpeachable fact. You want to stir up outrage, and if there was some substance to this then I might agree... but seeing as there isn't, your only thought seems to be "reparations bad". Since you don't make posts or object to other injustices being actively perpetrated, you clearly are of the opinion that the mere mention of reparations is more unethical than the existing denial of Constitutional rights to your fellow citizens.
Again, this isn't an ad hominem attack. You misemployed a word; to point that out is not an attack on you, it's a perfectly justified attack on your (wrong) use of language. Apparently your grasp of Latin isn't great either. And while I applaud your overall literacy in English as a second language, maybe take this advice: don't use words you don't actually know the meaning of.
Once again, nothing about my argument was sophistry, because none of it was made it bad faith and none of it was wrong. You are ignoring other pressing violations of rights, there isn't any substance to this proposal. You quoted an article which was itself explicitly vague and said nothing, and then made commentary on it as if this was some sort of actual bill being debated. You didn't engage in meaningful debate or questioning of the content of that article. You linked to it, took the most inflammatory piece you could find, and then proceeded to make an absurd statement about San Francisco. So don't tell me I'm arguing in bad faith, when the entire content of your post was little more than grist for WSO's alt-right outrage mill.
My thoughts:
You say you didn't call the topic I brought up in this thread irrelevant. I find this intellectually dishonest. Let me quote you, "Many states still have laws on the books that explicitly disallow gay marriage. Why not focus on that?" Here, you're telling me to focus on other topics, thereby undermining the relevance and importance of the topic I brought up. You also wrote, "As for the relevance in this discussion, I merely find it somewhat objectionable that you think this topic is worthy of your outrage when all over the country people are trying to take away the rights of millions of Americans ...." Again, overstating my outrage and undermining the relevance of this topic because there are, in your opinion, more important issues to discuss. "It is not dissimulation; it is merely pointing out the hypocrisy of bringing up a complete nothingburger of an issue." Here, you literally call the topic I brought up a nothingburger. Is that not you denying the relevance of my thread? In your new post, you also dismiss the topic entirely multiple times.
You also continue to call me hypocritical for focusing on a proposal that you think is irrelevant compared to more important issues. "It is not a serious issue, and I have no problem nor feel any remorse for pointing out that if you are focusing on a PR stunt like this while studiously ignoring the rollback of human and constitutional rights for millions of Americans, then you deserve some opprobrium." This particular proposal might not pass, but it is telling of the overall attitude towards reparations budding in liberal areas. I think the topic, therefore, has some merits, and people should be allowed to discuss it without you hounding them. I also think the topic can lead to discussions about reparations and fiscal responsibility in general, which are interesting dovetails. Furthermore, why do you assume I am ignoring other issues? Have you seen my entire online footprint? Do you know me personally? Have you heard all of my opinions and witnessed all the debates I have engaged in outside of this website? You also say, "I've made the point in other contexts before, but if your primary concern is to make sure that historically oppressed minorities don't receive recognition or recompense, or that you wish to stifle any discussion of that oppression, at the price of ignoring ongoing oppression, then you are either a fool or have an ulterior motive." How have you inferred that my primary concern is to stifle discussion around oppression or prevent minorities from receiving recognition? How do you know what I care about? You are the one putting words in my mouth. It's so hasty of you to formulate all these charges against my character based on one post. You seem like the type of person who will look at another person and think they know everything about them immediately... I also see you have looked at my post history, "Since you don't make posts or object to other injustices being actively perpetrated, you clearly are of the opinion that the mere mention of reparations is more unethical than the existing denial of Constitutional rights to your fellow citizens." The vast majority of my posts are anonymous, I post on a few other forums occasionally, and I enter into debates offline, so you cannot and should not assume my opinions based on 0.00001% of my lifetime verbal output (this post).
You persist in discrediting my usage of certain words. Allow me to show you I have used these particular words correctly. Below are some dictionary definitions and concrete examples:
Dissimulation: Concealment of one's thoughts, feelings, or character; pretense.
I believe your initial post concealed your true agenda and ideology, which you expounded on in a later comment. I think it was an act of pretense whereby you attempted to shift attention away from my topic through fallacious means (I elaborate below).
Sophistry: The use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.
Example 1: "Many states still have laws on the books that explicitly disallow gay marriage. Why not focus on that?" - This is a fallacy of relative privation or appeal to worse problems when someone dismisses the importance of a particular issue by claiming that there are more significant problems in the world. You do the same in your new comment when you bring up Texas putting a bounty on drag queens. Completely unrelated problem that sounds terrible, by the way.
Example 2: "Since you don't make posts or object to other injustices being actively perpetrated, you clearly are of the opinion that the mere mention of reparations is more unethical than the existing denial of Constitutional rights to your fellow citizens" - Straw-man fallacy in which you misrepresent, assume, and exaggerate my character, my overall ideology, and my opinions on other matters I have not even broached in this particular thread.
As for the ad-hominem charge, you have, instead of articulating the merits or demerits of the topic at hand, wrongly criticized my use of the English language, attacked my character and overarching ideology with no evidence, and inflated my outrage. Yes, my charges of ad-hominem are correct, and yes, you are, in fact, a sophist (whether or not you realize it)
Sit ad et error quod accusantium. Beatae aliquam rerum eveniet tenetur. Veritatis laboriosam occaecati occaecati incidunt voluptas numquam voluptatem. Similique est et at neque et similique.
Voluptatibus voluptatem molestiae enim qui dolores ea rerum. Ut quo ut et commodi sed. Repellat quibusdam soluta harum earum et corrupti. Voluptatem ut dolorum magni ut eius ut.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...