|
Dr. Stab posted:I don't think the people who can't eat suffer any differently if they're hungry because of capitalism or hungry because of communism. No you see, the people going hungry in America also get this warm feeling of superiority from knowing that their country is capable of taking care of them, it just chooses not to.
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:56 |
|
|
Kthulhu5000 posted:The thing that gets me about that list is how spiteful and regulation-heavy it is. Arguing against the existence of a welfare state at all (while wrong) is at least an honest position; this douchebag, on the other hand, is engaging in that libertarian-bizarre (well, maybe not, considering how many of them are apparently sociopaths and selective misanthropes) rhetoric where somehow regulations are bad, unless it's to punish or hurt a group that the libertarian finds disdainful. Free us, but bind them in chains! If poor people are to be in thrall to a government, they had better be in thrall. It's as if the prospect of slavery can never be completely exorcised from hardcore libertarian ideology. Slavery can never be excised from capitalism, so naturally it features prominently for people that push ever-more-aggressive capitalist ideologies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Nosfereefer posted:While I'm not all that familiar with the cultural developments during the period, I've gotten the impression that during the early stages of the cold war, the US elite was pretty frightened by the prospect of the Soviets guaranteed standards of living compared to the depths of poverty seen in the states at the same time. I'm kind of getting the idea that apart from instituting some basic services, a big part of dealing with that PR-issue internally was to demonize the poors even further. While it's obviously a lot more complicated than that, I'm guessing the cold war didn't really help. Demonizing of the poor goes back even further than that; Kurt Vonnegut wrote about this in the context of World War 2. He noted how weird it was that American poor hated themselves a lot more than European poor. The "temporarily embarrassed billionaire" thing in the US has been going on probably since the 19th century, American Dream and all of that DeusExMachinima posted:Now ask yourself, is this the result of a stupid welfare system or genuine scarcity? And then you'll have the answer as to the difference between this and the picture I posted. It's the result of a society that cares about its rich more than its poor. Scarcity has nothing to do with it, at least not in the US
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:It's the result of a society that cares about its rich more than its poor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:E2: By this logic, they would be saying "you have nobody to blame but yourself" when it comes to someone applying for government assistance after being laid off due to company downsizing/mergers or unemployed after a company goes under due to economic recession/contraction. Speaking of which, it's one thing to attack unemployed people for not being able to work during a strong economy, but what about during recessions when businesses don't want to hire?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Speaking of which, it's one thing to attack unemployed people for not being able to work during a strong economy, but what about during recessions when businesses don't want to hire? Well if it wasn't for the unjustifiable, unprovoked aggression of minimum wage laws/child labor restrictions/emancipation, then employers would be able to hire/buy even more people and unemployment would plunge!
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Sounds like a reasonably good definition of "being poor" that's not tautologically referring to money. Okay, in what sense does not "having money" not tautologically refer to "being poor" [edit] I'm too Hungarian to deal w/ negatives Nosfereefer fucked around with this message at 01:26 on Mar 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Sounds like a reasonably good definition of "being poor" that's not tautologically referring to money. Shut the gently caress up god drat it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
Nosfereefer posted:Okay, in what sense does not "having money" not tautologically refer to "being poor" Okay sorry, I guess I don't understand the question. But what I mean is, and I got this from an essay by I think Bruce sterling: the point of money is to quantify how much society cares about something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:As frustrating as the occasional welfare cheat is, it is law and order attitudes like those held by this writer that have led to our modern wasteful welfare system. Tons of rules have already been put in place by people similarly frustrated like this guy. And all those rules require even more taxes to pay for workers to enforce them. You can't win that game without causing more damage than a no-poo poo cheat ever could, which is why it's called a tragedy of the commons. That streak of authoritarianism has always existed in America, but as liberalism has won out, people pay less and less attention to those that say everyone's habits and entertainment and genitals need to be monitored and inspected at all times for immorality. Thus, those that crave authority over others redirect it to the most hated section of Americans: the poor, and find support that way. This is also the reason for ancap worship of private property, company towns,
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:That's the point. But maybe you're playing Activity or writing your thesis in continental philosophy. That would maybe be true in a just world, but our world is not just. In our world, it's just inaccurate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:That's the point. But maybe you're playing Activity or writing your thesis in continental philosophy. That's not even remotely true, nor has it ever been, all the way back to when we invented money in the first place. VitalSigns posted:That streak of authoritarianism has always existed in America, but as liberalism has won out, people pay less and less attention to those that say everyone's habits and entertainment and genitals need to be monitored and inspected at all times for immorality. Thus, those that crave authority over others redirect it to the most hated section of Americans: the poor, and find support that way. Blaming the poor for whatever character defects we feel like assigning to them is a proud American tradition ever since the Puritans landed here. No argument about ancapism though. Covenant Communities are such a blatant reaction to liberalism and desegregation that it's amazing they even try to call it anything else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:the point of money is to quantify how much society cares about something. But money can be inherited
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But money can be inherited As well as debt, hoooray
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:That's not even remotely true, nor has it ever been, all the way back to when we invented money in the first place. Considering a good chunk of modern Christianity equates wealth with "God blessing the righteous"; and even more equate poverty with "God's chastisement of the wicked"; it's no wonder that it's so easy to drum up hatred of the poor, and so hard to get any sympathy. So, how hard do you think it would be to convince these people to freely give money to help the poor? How much harder do you think it'll be to convince them to take a higher tax rate to help more poor people?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:Considering a good chunk of modern Christianity equates wealth with "God blessing the righteous"; and even more equate poverty with "God's chastisement of the wicked"; it's no wonder that it's so easy to drum up hatred of the poor, and so hard to get any sympathy. ...I'm confused, when did Jesus say gently caress the poor?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:...I'm confused, when did Jesus say gently caress the poor? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc-LJ_3VbUA
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
I read Liars in HS, Franken is pretty funny mane
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:...I'm confused, when did Jesus say gently caress the poor? He didn't. That came about way, way later. I mean way later. It's roots are in Calvinism. It was actually against Church rules in Europe for a very, very long time for a Christian to loan money for profit or to make too much profit on anything. Then you got issues like Divine Right, natural elites, etc. coming along and some people getting really unhappy that Jews could be rich but Christians couldn't be rich unless they were royalty. It's complex but some societal and religious things changed that made it increasingly OK to be greedy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:...I'm confused, when did Jesus say gently caress the poor?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:...I'm confused, when did Jesus say gently caress the poor? It's a drastic overemphasis of the "if a man shall not work, he shall not eat" verse combined with the general no-fun attitudes of the Puritans. Of course in reality it's not that anyone's saying wasting your life is good, it's that throwing tons of regulations out there to get back at the cheaters majorly increases the cost of a welfare system and makes it less able to get people out of poverty a.k.a. The Trap. We've ended up causing way more damage than actual indolents ever could because they're just individual dudes whereas the system fucks over millions of people at a time. It doesn't help that culture warriors have convinced quite a few folks that everyone on welfare has no work ethic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 06:00
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
It also doesn't help that "work ethic" seems to be synonymous with "if you aren't producing dollar income for someone else you're an awful leech." As opposed to "Do something with yourself, for chrissakes."
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:It's a drastic overemphasis of the "if a man shall not work, he shall not eat" verse combined with the general no-fun attitudes of the Puritans. Of course in reality it's not that anyone's saying wasting your life is good, it's that throwing tons of regulations out there to get back at the cheaters majorly increases the cost of a welfare system and makes it less able to get people out of poverty a.k.a. The Trap. We've ended up causing way more damage than actual indolents ever could because they're just individual dudes whereas the system fucks over millions of people at a time.  Good old Paul again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
Nessus posted:It also doesn't help that "work ethic" seems to be synonymous with "if you aren't producing dollar income for someone else you're an awful leech." As opposed to "Do something with yourself, for chrissakes." It was also used to justify slavery and indentured servitude. Those people will just be awful layabouts if we don't force them to work so we're helping them in the end.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 07:13
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:
Not that I like Paul on all topics (cf sex), but that particular verse is invariably taken out of context. In context he's way less of a shithead. Excessively brief summary: he considered feeding the hungry an absolute, undeniable requirement of Christianity, but was telling a few folks to stop abusing their neighbors' hospitality. Using that verse as support for anti-welfare policy shifts is very, very dumb. Or, at least as likely, very disingenuous.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 08:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But money can be inherited Seems about right to me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 10:23
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:So society cares more about the offspring of rich people than about poor people. ... Yes? The more clear example would be a mugger.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 12:38
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:So society cares more about the offspring of rich people than about poor people. ... Yes? No not necessarily? They can inherit that money whether anyone outside the family knows who they are or not. You're doing some serious question begging.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 13:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No not necessarily? They can inherit that money whether anyone outside the family knows who they are or not. Even if you find a huge amount of money on the streets/win the lottery, society will care more about you. The point is not that some individual feels genuine love for you - it's that society will treat you better if you're richer. For example, it will supply you with more stuff (without you actually doing anything productive but for maybe handing over tiny sheets of printed paper).
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 14:00
|
|
|
Here's a hint - they don't care about you, they care about those tiny sheets of printed paper.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 14:01
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:The more clear example would be a mugger. Or gambling for that matter. If I bet everything I own on red, does society get together and decide whether it values me twice as much as before (or zero?)
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:There Seele to be a fundamental misunderstanding here - I have no idea what you're talking about. Okay hold on, what exactly are you claiming. Are you claiming that society values you more if you have more money (trivially true), or that being valued by society is how you get money?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:There Seele to be a fundamental misunderstanding here - I have no idea what you're talking about. That's not them placing value on you. That's them wanting your pieces of paper and trying to do things to get them. So people will give you more stuff if you have more paper to give them, but people will also try to scam you or rob you for them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:Here's a hint - they don't care about you, they care about those tiny sheets of printed paper. Yes it's literally a proxy for how much society cares about you. The point Cingulate is making is somewhat semantic but it's not wrong. A big problem in our society is that a lot of cultural, legal and economic structures value a person entirely by the wealth they possess. Nothing else about that person matters. Going back to his original point, the rich are by definition the group society cares about. To be rich is to be favored in American society, to be poor is to be ignored. It doesn't matter why you have money, or how you got it, the money itself is what matters. That's not the way things should be but it's definitely the way things are. Cingulate is definitly a pendant but that doesn't mean everything he says is wrong. E: as an example, look at the whole extropian/seasteading/bitcoin/ultralibertarian movement. The is a group that is so ludicrously out there in terms of beliefs, but who throught that grace of idiots with money have acquired a veneer of legitimacy in the press that still persists to this day. Hell the Economist is guaranteed on any issue to have at least one editorial defending an rear end in a top hat's bullshit idea because rich people are involved somewhere. The only reason is money, all the other rationalizations come afterwards. Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 14:25 on Mar 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
But they don't actually care about those people themselves. There are many rich people you don't even know exist. IMO this is a stupid argument.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Not that I like Paul on all topics (cf sex), but that particular verse is invariably taken out of context. In context he's way less of a shithead. And Incidentally, 100% in line with raging about welfare cheats.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:There Seele to be a fundamental misunderstanding here - I have no idea what you're talking about. You have retreated from "wealth is a social measure of value" to "people want other peoples' money" which is a trivial and trite statement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Okay hold on, what exactly are you claiming. Are you claiming that society values you more if you have more money (trivially true), or that being valued by society is how you get money? I think the idea is that money is only worthwhile if the only way to get it is by adding value to society, and that its purpose is perverted otherwise. 'Care' is a bad word here: I would use "how much society is dedicated to something." We're really loving dedicated to oil, for example. And how dedicated our politics have been to keeping Wall Street unbridled. For example, part of the reason we spend so goddamn much on the medical industry but have comparably awful public health outcomes is that there are these rich-rear end old dudes who want to live longer, so if a hospital cures a Koch's prostate cancer, here have 150 million dollars for a cancer building. Not for more staff and beds, nothing that actually reduces the costs of care for vulnerable patients, but just a big wing for this specific thing that affected him personally. And I had to dig through a bunch of links going "oh now liberals don't have a leg to stand on with taxes he gave away 0.3% of his wealth why are kochs so-called evil when there's SO MUCH CHARITY" to find a neutral-toned one. And that's the big philanthropy catfish. Libertarians imagine titanous ha, tight anus benefactors of society that 'just know' how to make everything be the best, but in reality the people who take every opportunity to amass wealth, will come to the end of their journey, see the grim reaper ahead, and direct their chunk of dedicated society to their own life extension, or barring that, a grandiose symbol of legacy, scarcely different from the Pharaoh's pyramids.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Hm. I am very surprised by the intensity of the responses. Is it possible some here have read me as saying something like: - money is an objective measure of the intrinsic value of something/somebody - money and how much society values you is highly correlated, and that is a good thing - money is a measure of how much good one contributes to society/how much real value one has for society Because I did not mean to say, or believe, any of these. Sedanchair* said I am pedantic, but here I was super vague and half assed - I was just riffing on an essay by Bruce Sterling I read a decade ago. And its point was: money is a means of quantifying how much value society places on a good, service, or even human being. That's the function of money. (At least that's how I remember the essay.) Also: some of you guys are strangely superficial here. Tiny printed sheets of paper aren't actually intrinsically valuable, that is what should become obvious by pointing out they're actually just tiny printed sheets of paper. Nobody actually wants to own money qua money. One wants to have power, freedom, security, status and so on, and society provides these, but to various degrees, and it does so according to a metric: money. E: actually, Sedge and Bee Cingulate fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Mar 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:56 |
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Demonizing of the poor goes back even further than that; Kurt Vonnegut wrote about this in the context of World War 2. He noted how weird it was that American poor hated themselves a lot more than European poor. The "temporarily embarrassed billionaire" thing in the US has been going on probably since the 19th century, American Dream and all of that My hypothesis is that there's a lot more emphasis on individualism as an ideology in America than Europe. It's easier to resist self-hatred when you're cognizant of your temporary place in a shifting and economy rather than being burdened by a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps! It's your fault if you don't succeed!" mentality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 16:29
|
|
