|
Strudel Man posted:Why on earth would "the establishment" care about doing that. Strudel Man posted:Indeed. Nobody's attitude about our present engagements, or those we're likely to be involved in in the future, is going to be altered one scintilla by a minor tidying-up of the image of world war I. You're speaking from a hell of a lot of ignorance here. It's incontrovertible that the British government and the BBC, aided by the right-wing print media, have been engaged in an effort to do that - I'm not saying it's a concerted conspiracy but it's happening. Year on year, the Remembrance Day ceremonies have become more jingoistic; the tenor of the entire thing has shifted from commemoration to a celebration of the 'heroic' soldiers in Afghanistan. Branches of the Royal British Legion have started handing out t-shirts for kids saying 'Future Soldier'. The education minister, Michael Gove, keeps speaking at length about how there is an extreme left-wing Marxist stranglehold on education at all levels (I'm not even putting words in his mouth here) and that we need to re-assess World War One as a glorious justified fight for 'liberal democracy' and freedom fought entirely by 'conscious believers' in the rightness of their cause. Why are they doing this? Ideological reasons (especially Gove, who's a total fruitcake) and as an aspect of the increasingly militaristic attitudes in this country, I'd say. But regardless of why they're doing it, it's happening. Sneering about it because I used the phrase 'the establishment' to describe precisely that doesn't change that.
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:37 |
|
|
They're doing this because it takes 100 years for everyone to forget how horrible and pointless total war is, and the usual interests can once again drum up jingoism and militarism so the people will back whatever horrible slaughters serve the commercial interests of the moneyed classes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
They're doing it because they're personally military fetishists and actually believe it. Not everything in the world is a scheme, for god's sake.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
John Charity Spring posted:You're speaking from a hell of a lot of ignorance here. Meanwhile the ability of the UK to project force outside of its borders is slightly above that of Iran, and if Argentina decided to take over the Falklands tomorrow Cameron would have zero options outside of begging the Americans for help. So why ramp up the jingoism? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:They're doing it because they're personally military fetishists and actually believe it. Not everything in the world is a scheme, for god's sake. People don't scheme to be jingoistic history-ignoring fuckwits but they are and it sucks. Especially when they produce a huge amount of media.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 08:31
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:They're doing it because they're personally military fetishists and actually believe it. Not everything in the world is a scheme, for god's sake. Oh I'm sure the person who wrote that drivel is personally a military fetishist fuckwit. I'm sure he would not benefit personally from war, in fact I bet a real war would ruin him. That has nothing to do with why the owners of the media relentlessly push pro military messages though, and why fuckwits like him get center stage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 09:18
|
|
|
This letter to the Wall Street Journal has an interesting theory about the end goal of those who don't love the rich:quote:Regarding your editorial "Censors on Campus" (Jan. 18): Writing from the epicenter of progressive thought, San Francisco, I would call attention to the parallels of fascist Nazi Germany to its war on its "one percent," namely its Jews, to the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the "rich." This was written by Mr. Tom Perkins, founder of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. There are a few points to disagree on, let's start with how in 1930s Germany the Jewish population didn't have quite the same levels of political power and influence as the organizers of Kristallnacht. Also the super-rich aren't an ethnic/religious minority.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
By that reasoning couldn't we turn any movement or attitude towards any group of people or organization into a Holocaust analogy? I wish we could ban people from talking about history unless they passed a test or something. e: "Put child molesters in jail? You know who else imprisoned a small group of people? Hitler. Why are you hating on successful pedophiles?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
Xombie posted:In other words, they had no independence. Which in real life is a guaranteed way to stunt your children's emotional growth, because it isn't what real life is like. I've never met anyone who grew up in a household like this that were very well-adjusted adults. Unfortunately, if you're wealthy it is entirely possible to live your entire life as an emotionally stunted person who makes morally questionable decisions without it ever having much of adverse effect. Mojo Threepwood posted:This letter to the Wall Street Journal has an interesting theory about the end goal of those who don't love the rich: I would unironically not have much of a problem with rioting targeting the rich. While there are a number of better ways to deal with the situation, it would at least be better than the status quo where a large portion of the working class like and support the same people who exploit them. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Jan 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
Mojo Threepwood posted:This letter to the Wall Street Journal has an interesting theory about the end goal of those who don't love the rich: You've found us out, Tom Perkins, but it's nothing so monstrous. We just want their homes so we can house the poor and homeless. What's that, where will the rich people live? Ohoho, don't worry Tom, don't worry.  
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
Mojo Threepwood posted:This letter to the Wall Street Journal has an interesting theory about the end goal of those who don't love the rich: Is Danielle Steel really the biggest celebrity in San Francisco 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
The Moon Monster posted:Is Danielle Steel really the biggest celebrity in San Francisco When I looked up Steel to see a picture of her, she looked exactly as I imagined she would look.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:All the kids were required to take every Advanced Placement class there was. We did not let entrance scores be an impediment. We went to the school and demanded our kids be let in. Then we, as parents, spent the time to ensure they had the understanding to pass the class. After the first child, the school learned that we kept our promise that the kids could handle the AP classes. So wait, despite 2 hours of mandatory study time every night, after the first child failed the AP entrance exams, your focus was not on preparing the other 11 that followed to pass the entrance exams, but rather to argue with the administration for every one of your kids to be let in and then ensure they passed? I wonder how they scored on the actual AP tests, (the whole point of putting your kids in AP class) since they seemed to suck at test taking. Definitely STDH.txt.Mojo Threepwood posted:This was written by Mr. Tom Perkins, founder of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. There are a few points to disagree on, let's start with how in 1930s Germany the Jewish population didn't have quite the same levels of political power and influence as the organizers of Kristallnacht. Also the super-rich aren't an ethnic/religious minority. Well, misplaced self-identification aside, isn't he basically saying that we, the not rich, want to put the rich and their supporters up against a wall? I can certainly support that (figuratively speaking). Do these people not get that it's not the fact of having money, but the attitudes and actions towards those who don't that we have a problem with? My Q-Face fucked around with this message at 12:43 on Jan 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 12:30
|
|
|
My Q-Face posted:Well, misplaced self-identification aside, isn't he basically saying that we, the not rich, want to put the rich and their supporters up against a wall? I can certainly support that (figuratively speaking). Do these people not get that it's not the fact of having money, but the attitudes and actions towards those who don't that we have a problem with? I don't know about you but when the richest countries in the world, all of whom have only been getting richer the past decades, have massive increased wealth concentrations on the one hand while having a growing poverty problem on the other, it's also the fact that they have all the loving money that is the problem to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
My Q-Face posted:So wait, despite 2 hours of mandatory study time every night, after the first child failed the AP entrance exams, your focus was not on preparing the other 11 that followed to pass the entrance exams, but rather to argue with the administration for every one of your kids to be let in and then ensure they passed? On the off chance it did happen, the reason the school let their kids into AP classes after failing entrance tests wasn't "We had proven we could drive a kid to succeed in that environment", it was "Jesus gently caress, another one of their kids failed an entrance exam, now they're going to come scream at us until they're blue in the face again. gently caress it, let them in."
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:I don't know about you but when the richest countries in the world, all of whom have only been getting richer the past decades, have massive increased wealth concentrations on the one hand while having a growing poverty problem on the other, it's also the fact that they have all the loving money that is the problem to me. "Having all the money" is part of the attitude I'm talking about. I don't begrudge anybody having a hundren million dollars. I begrudge them having a hundred million dollars and then doing their damnedest to slash taxes and government services and fighting like hell to prevent things like universal health care and food stamps. The common thread among the desperate rich is that we hate them just for being rich. It's like someone said of Kelly LeBrock's "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful": I don't hate you because you're beautiful, I hate you because you're conceited enough to say that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
thefncrow posted:On the off chance it did happen, the reason the school let their kids into AP classes after failing entrance tests wasn't "We had proven we could drive a kid to succeed in that environment", it was "Jesus gently caress, another one of their kids failed an entrance exam, now they're going to come scream at us until they're blue in the face again. gently caress it, let them in." I don't know, at my school you were required to have gotten at least a B in whatever subject the previous year to be allowed to sign up for the AP version of it, but if you didn't qualify all you had to do to get in AP anyway was to have your parents sign a form saying they understand it's a college level class so if you fail they can't come to the school later and ask "well why did you let my kid take such a hard class?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
My Q-Face posted:"Having all the money" is part of the attitude I'm talking about. I don't begrudge anybody having a hundren million dollars. I begrudge them having a hundred million dollars and then doing their damnedest to slash taxes and government services and fighting like hell to prevent things like universal health care and food stamps. I liked how the GOP acted like the accusations of "vulture capitalism" against Romney were unfounded liberal propaganda rather than stuff his Republican opponents threw around in the primaries.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Most people don't talk ill of Gates like they do Koch brothers and the such because he uses his money to help people not control the government so he can have even more money .
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:That's the fundamental thing that the Fox News types fail (or just refuse) to understand. I'm sure some people hate the rich just because they're rich, but there are a heck of a lot of rich people who do bad things, not to mention corporations that in human terms act like blatant sociopaths. But of course the Fox & Friends guys had to dismiss it as mere jealousy by lazy poors. I don't know about rich but all wealthy people either do or have done bad things to get wealthy in the first place. Either that or get born into it, but don't worry, they probably did or are doing bad things too. We can handwring all we want but when it comes down to it, yes the problem is the loving money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:I don't know about rich but all wealthy people either do or have done bad things to get wealthy in the first place. Either that or get born into it, but don't worry, they probably did or are doing bad things too. We can handwring all we want but when it comes down to it, yes the problem is the loving money. Does your view apply even to highly paid professionals, like doctors?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
If I found a way to get rich I would stop caring about wealth inequality faster than I could say "clean my toilet, plebe."
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Snowman Crossing posted:If I found a way to get rich I would stop caring about wealth inequality faster than I could say "clean my toilet, plebe." post/avatar
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:Does your view apply even to highly paid professionals, like doctors? Difference between rich and wealthy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Difference between rich and wealthy. Those are actually synonyms, but I think I see what he was getting at now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:Those are actually synonyms, but I think I see what he was getting at now. There is something some comedian said about the difference between rich and wealthy... Chris Rock posted:Shaq is rich. The white man who signs his check … is wealthy. "Ah, here you go, Shaq. Go buy yourself a bouncing car. Bling, bling!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 07:20
|
|
|
I think this is a good time to remind everyone of the term HENRY (High Earner Not Rich Yet), and then go gouge my eyes out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 10:07
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:There is something some comedian said about the difference between rich and wealthy... He was talking about investing in that bit, and that's the real difference. Rich is "has a high income, reasonable assets", Wealthy is "Enough money invested to live off the dividends." Larry David has over $400 Million dollars and would never have to work another day in his life. Who exactly did he screw over to get that? JK Rowling, George Lucas and Stephen Spielberg are billionaires, who did they screw over (besides your childhood memories)?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
Whom did they screw over? The workers in the publishing and entertainment industries who do the essential work to bring their works to the public at large yet don't receive a living wage, that's whom.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
That's not even counting any back taxes any of them owe. Or offshored money. Or the systematic reduction in tax rates on the very wealthy combined with the removal and/or limiting of the inheritance and capital gains taxes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Whom did they screw over? The workers in the publishing and entertainment industries who do the essential work to bring their works to the public at large yet don't receive a living wage, that's whom. Okay, yeah, I forgot about Lucas running off to Australia so he didn't have to deal with SAG.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
A letter to the editor in my local newspaper this morning (The Recorder, Greenfield, MA): “Socialism leads to slavery at the hands of the government. Why? Because one becomes totally dependent on government to provide its many people with health care, food, and many social services to the poor and sometimes to the undeserving. Its far-reaching grasp grows in a patch of ignorance and greed. Some undeserving individuals, without a grimace of restraint, will “work the system” in the leisure of life’s evening, getting paid for untrue physical difficulties while enjoying the taxpayer’s money. Incurably afflicted with their own antics of avarice they gloat in humorous frog-face smugness of takers. Their aim in life is to gain by deceit, not appreciation for work well done. Without a cloud on their brow they cash the government’s checks and whistle that they got away with it, not realizing their own spirit is supremely critical to their eternal salvation. With no badge of shame connected to the handout, they have convinced themselves that they are disabled. To the apparently sympathetic social worker who views the problem with generous compassion, it’s a done deal. The horror on the horizon is that once enslaved to taking, an individual lives in contempt of capitalism and will be told what to do and what one cannot do. Then the situation becomes prickly and scrubby like an unshaven chin. Revolution follows. This is the horror on the horizon.” I’m in love with this letter, not only for the insane slippery slope of socialism leading to slavery and revolution, but also the beautiful use of language (antics of avarice! Frog-faced smugness!). Truly a masterpiece of madness.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
Odonata posted:Frog-faced smugness! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
Odonata posted:I’m in love with this letter, not only for the insane slippery slope of socialism leading to slavery and revolution, but also the beautiful use of language (antics of avarice! Frog-faced smugness!). Truly a masterpiece of madness. I thought if we were going to be actually socialist we had to have a revolution first anyway. I know he's talking about "socialism" (a.k.a. what the Kenyan Muslim antichrist in the White House wants), but still.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 07:09
|
|
|
Mojo Threepwood posted:This letter to the Wall Street Journal has an interesting theory about the end goal of those who don't love the rich: Hahaha WSJ is now defending this bullshit: "Perkinsnacht: Liberal Vituperation Makes Our Letter Writer's Point." quote:While claiming to be outraged at the Nazi reference, the critics seem more incensed that Mr. Perkins dared to question the politics of economic class warfare. The boys at Bloomberg View—we read them since no one else does—devoted an entire editorial to inequality and Mr. Perkins's "unhinged Nazi rant." Others denounced him for defending his former wife Danielle Steel, and even for owning too many Rolex watches. quote:The liberals aren't encouraging violence, but they are promoting personal vilification and the abuse of government power to punish political opponents. http://www.popehat.com/2014/01/30/your-criticism-of-my-holocaust-analogy-is-like-yet-another-holocaust/ http://boingboing.net/2014/01/30/wall-street-journal-defends-na.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
I'm always fascinated when media figures make circulation or viewership figures a part of their slam.WSJ posted:The boys at Bloomberg View—we read them since no one else does—devoted an entire editorial to inequality and Mr. Perkins's "unhinged Nazi rant." It's like radio hosts going after each other. Either your argument is correct or it isn't. What educated person finds argumentum ad populum appealing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I'm always fascinated when media figures make circulation or viewership figures a part of their slam. I've found pretty much any argumentum ad murus platea to be false or comically poor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
joeburz posted:I've found pretty much any argumentum ad murus platea to be false or comically poor. What? I don't think that's a real phrase.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
My Q-Face posted:"Having all the money" is part of the attitude I'm talking about. I don't begrudge anybody having a hundren million dollars. I begrudge them having a hundred million dollars and then doing their damnedest to slash taxes and government services and fighting like hell to prevent things like universal health care and food stamps. Eh, I actually do begrudge them having 100 million dollars. I see the situation like this analogy: There are 100 people, and 10 of those 100 are randomly selected to participate in a game*. The top 3 of this game are given 100 million dollars, with the rest of the 10 receiving less (but still a lot of) money. Among the remaining 90, about 1/3 are living in dire poverty and don't have reliable access to food or healthcare. How would you feel about the folks who choose to remain millionaires in this situation? I absolutely believe that being rich is evil. It is impossible to justify owning great wealth in a society that #1 isn't fair and #2 has millions (billions if you're talking about the world) people living in poverty or even starving. While it might be necessary to work with some wealthy individuals/groups for pragmatic reasons, that doesn't mean they aren't bad people. As a side note, I think that there's a sliding scale when it comes to how wrong being wealthy is. While someone who makes $300,000 a year and chooses to use most of the money on him/herself certainly isn't a good person, it's far less detestable than someone who has tens/hundreds of millions of dollars. It's about the amount of effort it would take for someone to part from their money. Someone with 100 million dollars could - without any noticeable decrease in quality of life - give away 90 million at any given moment**. The fact that they choose not to makes them far more repugnant than someone in the middle class not donating $100. *The game here is just meant to point out that, while skill/ability are a factor (in this case winning the - presumably fair - game), most people aren't even given the option of competing. **I know that a huge portion - probably most - of the wealth the very rich possess isn't necessarily liquid, but when you're that rich you could simply hire people to do the work of selling off your assets.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:37 |
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:What? I don't think that's a real phrase. Because I just used ghetto latin for wall and large city street
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 03:37
|
|