[ksaun]

I was amused by the cleverness of your summary. :) But while what you wrote seems to literally be true, I don't think it's an accurate portrayal of what the article (if not its title) describes. I might have overlooked something, but

1. CA would be taking the money from everyone. (I.e., it isn't intending to punish and doesn't single out who is taxed. For example, a poor person who receives the reparations benefits more than a rich person who does, since the latter would have paid for more of the reparations through their own taxes.)

2. The people who would receive the money are descendants of slaves; while not former slaves themselves, this $ could be thought of as a representation of the inheritance they should have received. (But how they determine these people seems flimsy -- the article mentions people who "claim" enslaved ancestors and it's unclear how such claims may or may not be validated.)

Regarding CA not having been a slave state, the article mentions the harm caused by prejudicial policies in CA, but then it's unclear why affected people who don't have enslaved ancestry wouldn't also be compensated.

Anyway, after (and despite) writing out the above, I think your summary is actually fairly apt (and humorous). But I kind of wish it were less provocative.

(FWIW, I think the course of action discussed in the article is problematic and I have conflicted opinions about the concept of reparations. I think it is a complex topic.)

I think if more people tried to make less potentially inflammatory statements, it would be easier to have productive discussions about contentious topics. This could serve to reduce tribalism, which I feel would be a good thing.

(The article's title is a much stronger example of the inflammatory language that I think should be minimized.)

[Edit: grammatical and formatting fixes; criticism of the article's title added.]

[porkbeer]

If everyone gives money, and some get that money back and then some, those not getting the money defaco paid for it. Same outcome as a fine.

[tomohawk]

How does holding people responsible for the actions of people who died 100+ years ago lead to less tribalism?

The very idea is inflammatory, regardless of how it is talked about.

[easytiger]

If anything your rephrasing shows the patent absurdity.

> 1. CA would be taking the money from everyone.

Take money from everyone -> give to a subset of people == subset of people not reimbursed are net shouldering the cost.

> 2. The people who would receive the money are descendants of slaves; while not former slaves themselves, this $ could be thought of as a representation of the inheritance they should have received.

The asumption there is that skin colour ispo facto defines that you missed out on an "inheritance". Certainly previous discussion didn't define proof of lineage. The inverse is that other skin colours ispo facto have some financial benefit. Which would make all white people wealthy. Which isn't true.

The bit you also fail to discuss is the reality. These policies based on reductive marxist ideology, flawed since it's formalisation. Designed specifically to generate false predicates of victim-hood so as to take money and assets from other people. It is i'm afraid that simple