|
glowing-fish posted:Well, other facts about our hypothetical guy: Well, none of those things have much relation to "social status", which is what your hypothetical was originally about. Also, none of them are new or unusual, which you also originally claimed. You've moved the goalposts quite a bit. Besides, let's not stop there in their list of worries - after all, Paul Ryan has consistently been in favor of privatizing Social Security.
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:33 |
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:"Hey, you make little money and that sucks. You have it bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:You're not wrong, but it undermines your sympathy to tell someone they "aren't actually that bad off" while you're trying to be charitable. It's not brushing racism under the rug to give the rhetoric a rest for a single sentence. Should you also mention the poor animals who are being murdered for their McDonalds hamburgers every day, who have it worse than everyone? It's important that we do work to help black and brown people, AND poor people, it's not important to verbally rank who has it shittiest as a matter of rhetoric. Yeah, the moment someone says that poor whites have privilege I want to scream in frustration. That is a fact that should never be used for policy-making or public conversation, because it is the most insulting thing to say to someone suffering in poverty that their problems are not as bad as someone elses, or that they have had better opportunities in their poverty compared to someone else. It is true poor whites have some sort of privilege in the abstract, but telling that to them is insulting them and their situation, and saying 'oh you're poor, but you have not really felt the effects of poverty due to your white privilege' is not helping one bit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
No offence, but if you can't deal with the fact that there will always be people worse off than you, no matter how bad you have it in a first world country, you obviously have a childlike disposition. I mean, I don't see BLM protesters yelling about how we need to ban Syrian refugees because black people already have it rough enough in the US -- again, that argument seems to come mainly from the same racists that hate black people. It's like being the guy sitting in the ER bitching that they've been here for longer than the dude that just came in with a gunshot wound, why isn't their boo-boo getting stitched up first, dammit? This is the government of the United States of America -- possibly, if they put their mind to it, they could actually manage to address two problems at the same loving time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:"Hey, you make little money and that sucks. You have it bad. Someone who is black and brown and has as little of money as you likely has it worse due to the other short they have to go through. But you both have it bad. Let's focus on getting all of you guyses pay up and the individual struggles that plague your community so neither of you have it as bad." It's way more complicated than you're acknowledging. The people who complain that this kind of leftist rhetoric has historically led to policies that leave POC behind are absolutely right, which means any national platform has to also address those concerns directly. Saying you're going to "raise wages" means nothing to demographic groups that face double the general unemployment rate because of systemic discrimination, for example. And that's before you even get into the fact that any kind of wide reaching policy will necessarily have to target and provide additional benefits to disadvantaged groups, because those groups are starting from a worse place. PT6A posted:No offence, but if you can't deal with the fact that there will always be people worse off than you, no matter how bad you have it in a first world country, you obviously have a childlike disposition. Welcome to the mindset of middle America. It's not fair to give someone else a ladder if all you get is a stepping stool, even if that other person is already twenty feet below you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Well, none of those things have much relation to "social status", which is what your hypothetical was originally about. Also, none of them are new or unusual, which you also originally claimed. You've moved the goalposts quite a bit. What does "social status" mean? I mean, if it is only income, why not just say "economic status"? Economic status can be measured, but "social status" is a little harder to measure, but I think it is still a real thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Wage stagnation is a massive problem in America overall right now, as is underemployment. It's hitting rural areas the hardest for a multitude of reasons. Agriculture is automated and factory farmed to hell and back at this point. The town factory is just plain a thing that no longer exists. A hell of a lot of the Rust Belt, which voted Trump more heavily than expected, has been seeing that for several decades at this point. A lot of the area was based on towns that grew up around specific industries. Now those industries are gone and a lot of discarded, frustrated people are left. They're watching the young leave as the towns that they often helped build fall to ruin. The Democratic party has demonstrated that they absolutely don't give a poo poo about it beyond some lip service here and there. It's really not that the Democrats don't give a poo poo. It's that they can't offer easy fixes. Trump was fully willing to lie out his rear end and offer the rust belt a return to the 1960's that is outright impossible, because he doesn't give a gently caress what happens after the vote.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:You're not wrong, but it undermines your sympathy to tell someone they "aren't actually that bad off" while you're trying to be charitable. It's not brushing racism under the rug to give the rhetoric a rest for a single sentence. Should you also mention the poor animals who are being murdered for their McDonalds hamburgers every day, who have it worse than everyone? It's important that we do work to help black and brown people, AND poor people, it's not important to verbally rank who has it shittiest as a matter of rhetoric. I agree with you completely. My issue was the person I was quoting was acting like it was impossible to tackle both at once with someone. The quote was responding to a hypothetical "Why should they be focused on the blacks? I need to be focused on!" that the poster claimed was impossible. Paradoxish posted:It's way more complicated than you're acknowledging. The people who complain that this kind of leftist rhetoric has historically led to policies that leave POC behind are absolutely right, which means any national platform has to also address those concerns directly. Saying you're going to "raise wages" means nothing to demographic groups that face double the general unemployment rate because of systemic discrimination, for example. But it will mean a shitton for the majority of POC who are employed? And why can't you raise wages and fight discrimination at once. Paradoxish posted:And that's before you even get into the fact that any kind of wide reaching policy will necessarily have to target and provide additional benefits to disadvantaged groups, because those groups are starting from a worse place. Your point?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
Wealth inequality can be handled in an agnostic way, such as focusing on poverty density, leaving the anachronism of discriminating by race (positively or negatively) to die, as it well should.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:Wealth inequality can be handled in an agnostic way, such as focusing on poverty density, leaving the anachronism of discriminating by race (positively or negatively) to die, as it well should. Social justice proponents would claim that by being colorblind, you are allowing in practice racial prejudices to continue, and so minorities won't receive the full benefit of these programs. (They would still benefit quite a bit from these programs though--racism isn't as big of a problem now in the US as it was during the New Deal) They would say that you are obligated to write racism into the law to preferentially benefit minorities to counteract against in practice racism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
PT6A posted:No offence, but if you can't deal with the fact that there will always be people worse off than you, no matter how bad you have it in a first world country, you obviously have a childlike disposition. First, assuming that people don't know about it already and need to be constantly reminded, literally every time this comes up, is lovely and paternalistic - meaning it obviously also serves to establish a dominance in the discourse of the people employing it (because they are able to see past the pettiness of personal circumstances and see the whole world objectively). Second, what are they supposed to do with this information, how is it of practical significance to people who are part of the underclass. Third, Browbeating people for being ingrates who have it too good as is has been a popular rhetorical device throughout history, so naturally nobody is going to trust you a whole lot when you use a rhetoric that is identical on the surface, but maybe has a different intent (though I would argue about your unexamined socially ingrained motives and how it affects what your are saying). steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 12:04 on Jan 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 12:00
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Social justice proponents would claim that by being colorblind, you are allowing in practice racial prejudices to continue, and so minorities won't receive the full benefit of these programs. (They would still benefit quite a bit from these programs though--racism isn't as big of a problem now in the US as it was during the New Deal) They would say that you are obligated to write racism into the law to preferentially benefit minorities to counteract against in practice racism. Colorblind is a term utterly destroyed by disingenuous idiots who are anything but it. Anyway, I have found that lots of people promoting intersectionalism actually don't know what intersectionalism is. As soon as you mention a general welfare platform, they will just start accusing you of not caring about minorities or something, as if the idea of having a fundamental piece of legislation would preclude the creation of a more nuanced and structured system of benefits on top of it, instead of actually enabling a broader, intersectional reform to happen. They are constantly shooting themselves in the foot by insisting that the whole thing must be built starting from particulars towards the fundamentals. As if the government was one guy called Jimmy Government with a desk and a chair, capable of only paying attention to one thing at a time, so you had to fight for his attention. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 12:16 on Jan 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 12:09
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Social justice proponents would claim that by being colorblind, you are allowing in practice racial prejudices to continue, and so minorities won't receive the full benefit of these programs. (They would still benefit quite a bit from these programs though--racism isn't as big of a problem now in the US as it was during the New Deal) They would say that you are obligated to write racism into the law to preferentially benefit minorities to counteract against in practice racism. I understand the social justice counter argument. If a benefit program isn't being executed fairly, then mandating "minority X gets special, patronizing treatment" most likely isn't going to magically make the executors of a program stop being racist. Sulphuric Asshole fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Jan 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 14:14
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Colorblind is a term utterly destroyed by disingenuous idiots who are anything but it. Or, and we're seeing this in action right now with the GOP's attempts to gut the ACA, they don't trust that broad reforms will actually create the system you desire, even if attempted with the best of intentions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
Well, to get back to the "People will live under bridges and eat slop if they know others won't get the slop" side, aren't we going down the opposite road and saying that people will not buy into a system that helps them if they know that it helps others more? I'm not sure that's true. It's usually sold as a zero-sum game, i.e. if somebody else wins, that means I'm gonna lose. Plus, the usual sprinkling of perfect solution fallacy: the schemes we can come up with don't solve all the problems so we shouldn't adopt any of them, no matter how many people we could help. I mean, just imagine if we suddenly have a better idea twenty years down the line! Wouldn't that be embarrassing. As for my attempt at a sales pitch: "Hey, you make little money and that sucks. We believe there's enough to go around for everyone to make a decent life for themselves, but to achieve that we need to establish fair wages and invest in America. Let's work together to make it happen."
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
Gatac posted:Well, to get back to the "People will live under bridges and eat slop if they know others won't get the slop" side, aren't we going down the opposite road and saying that people will not buy into a system that helps them if they know that it helps others more? I'm not sure that's true. It's usually sold as a zero-sum game, i.e. if somebody else wins, that means I'm gonna lose. Hasn't that been proven time and time again, though? It feels like every other month we have another study come out with some variation of an experiment where people are more willing to get five dollars than to get ten dollars and some other guy gets twenty or some other version. People are kind of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
It can be a good instinct, especially when it's the same guy who keeps getting those 20$.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
ACES CURE PLANES posted:Hasn't that been proven time and time again, though? It feels like every other month we have another study come out with some variation of an experiment where people are more willing to get five dollars than to get ten dollars and some other guy gets twenty or some other version. But the same sort of people who hate minorities getting anything are also the sort of guys who will say they are not jealous of the rich and liberals shouldn't be either (in reference to taxing.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
ACES CURE PLANES posted:Hasn't that been proven time and time again, though? It feels like every other month we have another study come out with some variation of an experiment where people are more willing to get five dollars than to get ten dollars and some other guy gets twenty or some other version.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
Cicero posted:IIRC this behavior is strongly culture-dependent, although it is more or less true in the US. Not just culture, also social status etc. I remember reading a couple of game theory related studies that show that middle class college students in Western countries are, on average, some of the most selfish pricks on Earth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
ACES CURE PLANES posted:Hasn't that been proven time and time again, though? It feels like every other month we have another study come out with some variation of an experiment where people are more willing to get five dollars than to get ten dollars and some other guy gets twenty or some other version. This is true, but only in games where the person has perfect information about all other players and rules, and also AFAIK the typical scenario is more like "Two players, 100 bucks, first player promotes how to split it, second one can either accept that proposal, or reject the money on behalf of both players." Then the second player will refuse offers he sees as insulting and unfair even if he would still end up better off than at the beginning. But such situations never really happen IRL, most often one person never even realizes all the persons, institutions and redistributions involved in the transactions on which he participates. Thus they make decisions on the politically charged optics of policy effects, not on the actual redistributive effects. And the job of politicians is among other things to shift the optics. or in other words, people refuse to participate in "games" or to sabotage them not because of a deliberate decision made regarding the rules, but because of the skewed way these games have been described to them by other actors with a better understanding of them and with clearly preferred outcomes. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Jan 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
I should probably rephrase the "selfish prick" thing as "utterly incapable of trusting others in situations where they do not have power over them" since it's closer to what the particular stuff I read implied.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
Gatac posted:As for my attempt at a sales pitch: "Hey, you make little money and that sucks. We believe there's enough to go around for everyone to make a decent life for themselves, but to achieve that we need to establish fair wages and invest in America. Let's work together to make it happen." And then Aaron Sorkin stood up and clapped and it turned into a total West Wing riff-fest
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Your point? That it's complicated. Your assertion that this is a simple problem to solve is absolutely untrue, as should be clear from every other attempt that's ever been made at pushing leftist ideology in US history. If you want to push a large scale welfare program, especially one that will help people in failing rural regions, you have to break through the idea that targeted assistance to people who are more disadvantaged is "unfair." That's not something that anyone in US politics has ever really succeeded at, so I have no idea what makes you think this is an easy problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Then the second player will refuse offers he sees as insulting and unfair even if he would still end up better off than at the beginning. lol can't imagine why the Clintonistas would be so bent on twisting this into pubescent sulking about how "people are poo poo" Liquid Communism posted:Or, and we're seeing this in action right now with the GOP's attempts to gut the ACA, they don't trust that broad reforms will actually create the system you desire, even if attempted with the best of intentions. A lot of people who aren't devoted ideological libertarians don't trust broad federal reforms simply because they see them so often blatantly performed without the best of intentions, the healthcare mandate being a prime example. The Democrats expended a once-in-a-lifetime political opportunity on creating a system nobody desires, save for Blue Cross Blue Shield, and their stock defenses that the scraps of reform they bundled in there are better than nothing and they coulda hosed people worse and you're ungrateful tell people exactly how much they can trust the party of big government to wield government policy in their interests. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Jan 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Anyway, I have found that lots of people promoting intersectionalism actually don't know what intersectionalism is. As soon as you mention a general welfare platform, they will just start accusing you of not caring about minorities or something, as if the idea of having a fundamental piece of legislation would preclude the creation of a more nuanced and structured system of benefits on top of it, instead of actually enabling a broader, intersectional reform to happen. They are constantly shooting themselves in the foot by insisting that the whole thing must be built starting from particulars towards the fundamentals. As if the government was one guy called Jimmy Government with a desk and a chair, capable of only paying attention to one thing at a time, so you had to fight for his attention. Yeah, if you are really into social welfare programs, raking Bernie over the coals for being from white Vermont and instead placing your support in Hillary Clinton was incredibly short-sighted and did not make sense to me at all. Gatac posted:It's usually sold as a zero-sum game, i.e. if somebody else wins, that means I'm gonna lose. This is how many social justice proponents think of social welfare policies which do not enshrine special benefits for minorities. They think of it as a zero-sum game and by not writing racism into the law to counteract against in-practice racism against e.g. black people, white people win and black people lose. Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:I understand the social justice counter argument. If a benefit program isn't being executed fairly, then mandating "minority X gets special, patronizing treatment" most likely isn't going to magically make the executors of a program stop being racist. It won't magically make the government program executors stop being racist, but the argument is that enshrining special benefits for certain minorities in the law will help counteract against those in practice prejudices. You will have to use a 'Calculus of Oppression', play the 'Oppression Olympics', or construct a 'Cosmic Scale of Hardships' though to determine which social groups will receive special benefits and to what extent. Social justice proponents who are for these types of policies but claim that there is no such thing as the 'Oppression Olympics' haven't given their ideology a lot of thought, IMO.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
pretty cool that someone can be pro-bernie, anti-clinton, and also accuse SJWs of being ignorant the real racists in one post. classy
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
In the UHC countries, how racially skewed is access to that "U"HC?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:What does "social status" mean? I mean, if it is only income, why not just say "economic status"? Well, what the hell does "old people are older and sicker than young people" have to do with social status? What definition are you using? Social status and economic status are usually fairly tightly coupled because economic status is what people use to buy markers of social status. Gatac posted:Well, to get back to the "People will live under bridges and eat slop if they know others won't get the slop" side, aren't we going down the opposite road and saying that people will not buy into a system that helps them if they know that it helps others more? I'm not sure that's true. It's usually sold as a zero-sum game, i.e. if somebody else wins, that means I'm gonna lose. It's always a zero-sum game. If the program helps everyone, then people will assume there's a risk (real or imagined) that it will cause secondary effects that might hurt them, people that they care about, or ideals that they believe in. If it helps someone else more than it helps them then they're less likely to tolerate that risk.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's always a zero-sum game. If the program helps everyone, then people will assume there's a risk (real or imagined) that it will cause secondary effects that might hurt them, people that they care about, or ideals that they believe in. If it helps someone else more than it helps them then they're less likely to tolerate that risk. It's a zero sum game only through the illusion of framing, and it's up to progressive politicians to dispel this. Instead Democrats have often been feeding this stupid fear of big government.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
shovelbum posted:In the UHC countries, how racially skewed is access to that "U"HC?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:If anything, the minorities actually benefit from it, for example the Roma even get free birth control and sterilization. Yikes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Social justice proponents would claim that... silence_kit posted:This is how many social justice proponents... I can't help but notice something about the way you post.  mobby_6kl posted:If anything, the minorities actually benefit from it, for example the Roma even get free birth control and sterilization. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:First, assuming that people don't know about it already and need to be constantly reminded, literally every time this comes up, is lovely and paternalistic - meaning it obviously also serves to establish a dominance in the discourse of the people employing it (because they are able to see past the pettiness of personal circumstances and see the whole world objectively). It's not just poor white rural men who get annoyed whenever you bring up their privilege. I'm sure that if someone were to go into the negrotown or feminism threads on this board and bring up that the posters there are way more privileged than starving children in Africa and Southeast Asia, that person would get immediately accused of trying to trivialize problems black people and women face in the first world, would get dogpiled on, and probably would get a probation for 'silencing the voices' of posters in the thread. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
Rural people are so hosed and only going to be more hosed over the next 4 years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:It's not just poor white rural men who get annoyed whenever you bring up their privilege. I'm sure that if someone were to go into the negrotown or feminism threads on this board and bring up that the posters there are way more privileged than starving children in Africa and Southeast Asia, that person would get immediately accused of trying to trivialize problems black people and women face in the first world, would get dogpiled on, and probably would get a probation for 'silencing the voices' of posters in the thread. You've brought this up more than once (or maybe it was someone else that was making the same point) and I have so far seen absolutely zero evidence that's its true, other than your imagination, which, you'll forgive me, is not what I would consider a reliable source. In fact, I believe elements of the black experience outside the US have been discussed several times in the Negrotown thread and no one had a shitfit about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:It's not just poor white rural men who get annoyed whenever you bring up their privilege. I'm sure that if someone were to go into the negrotown or feminism threads on this board and bring up that the posters there are way more privileged than starving children in Africa and Southeast Asia, that person would get immediately accused of trying to trivialize problems black people and women face in the first world, would get dogpiled on, and probably would get a probation for 'silencing the voices' of posters in the thread. "why is it that when I talk about white men as the real victims everyone dogpiles me but also I get dogpiled if I try to derail the feminism thread to try and talk about africans I don't actually care about!?!?!?!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
PT6A posted:You've brought this up more than once (or maybe it was someone else that was making the same point) and I have so far seen absolutely zero evidence that's its true, other than your imagination, which, you'll forgive me, is not what I would consider a reliable source. In fact, I believe elements of the black experience outside the US have been discussed several times in the Negrotown thread and no one had a shitfit about it. that's probably because those things were brought up out of a sincere desire to discuss them and not to gleefully piss on a thread out of spite, as silence_kit desperately wants to do because of internet grudges
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:that's probably because those things were brought up out of a sincere desire to discuss them and not to gleefully piss on a thread out of spite, as silence_kit desperately wants to do because of internet grudges Well, there is that...
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:33 |
|
|
PT6A posted:I have so far seen absolutely zero evidence that's its true I think you should try it yourself and see what happens.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 18:15
|
|