|
A Winner is Jew posted:The majority of liberal white people still don't really like black people, it's just that they realize you can't treat them like second class citizens. I mean really, how many liberal white people that you know would be totally cool living in a black neighborhood, or having a black family move in next to them? I've been thinking for a while that this is why racism will still be a thing long after conservatives start denying they ever were against gay marriage*. With people under 50 at least, the right and left seem to be becoming increasingly unified in the belief that their gay and lesbian friends are typical examples of their fellows, in the same way that they're both unified in the belief that their black friends and relatives are "the good ones." So even while you might convince some young libertarian-flavor conservatives on the "states rights" or "business owners' rights" thing in vague principle, they're not going to really go to bat for this sort of discrimination like they will at fear of some imagined shadowy culture of welfare leechers, or like old people still shocked and appalled at two men holding hands in public will be. *They'll probably actually be "We like that best since it means they're in committed monogamous relationships rather than dirty sluts" though.
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 00:48 |
|
|
mcmagic posted:Big ag is using all the water. Everything else is a rounding error. Yeah, people who pay close attention to residential water use in the desert we've turned into farmland are like isolationists who get angry about how much money goes into foreign aid but don't care about what goes into foreign wars. Samurai Sanders posted:It's easier to argue that those are essential uses of water though, right? It wouldn't make a big splash on either the US or the world economy if we just imported what we can't grow in the literal desert with existing water supplies. Killer robot fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Apr 2, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:Holy poo poo people in this thread are defeatist. Things can change, and particularly in times of crisis things can change quite quickly. A better world isn't going to be easy, but it's definitely possible and worth fighting for. People have been slowly improving their world for literally millennia; what makes you think that the problems we face are in any way special? One part is that the excitement of living in end times is hard to deny, and people who don't literally think God will be coming down to earth in their lifetimes need to find it somewhere else. Another part is first world problems: things have mostly plateaued for them or even dipped, especially relative to the world around, and a lot of people like to ignore how much health is improving and poverty declining elsewhere. A third is the 24/7 news culture. People know the problems that were always there and usually worse, but with it live on the internet they see it as a new development, and a sign things are getting worse. It's just like asking people whether they think there's more crime in the US than there was a generation ago. This also relates to the previous point: knowing things are still pretty bad in the rest of the world doesn't mean they know the level of war, famine, and poverty in the fairly recent past. A fourth is progress being the enemy of activism. Mind, it's not that activists don't want progress, it's just that acknowledging it is generally considered bad for rallying the troops. So you always talk about how you're the underdog no matter how much momentum you have, always "They're about to win!" and never "We're making progress but we're not there so keep it up!" A fifth is hopeless conditions also being the ally of inaction. Same way if you want to recruit others to help you fight you want to seem in the game but on the ropes, if you want to make an excuse to just wash your hands of it you tell yourself things can't be salvaged, then go pat yourself on the back for being smart enough to recognize the fact. If most of this sounds like the psychoanalysis you see here of right-wingers, it's because humans mostly all have the same kinds of brains, fear the same kinds of things, and affirm their tribal affiliations in the same way.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
site posted:What's wrong with enjoying cake? Did you guys not have childhoods or were they just really rocky? I agree here. One of the best things about working out a lot is that you can regularly binge on stupid junk foods. I can totally see the argument that the guy's got lousy taste in cake, but lots of people like crappy comfort food of some sort or another, and as long as you like it that's the only important part.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:$2 a week for an infinitesimally small chance of winning millions of dollars seems like not that bad of an idea unless you're literally starving. I spend way more money on way stupider poo poo (like Las Vegas strip drink prices). It's the people that spend like $100 a week as though it's going to increase their odds by any appreciable amount that have issues. Yeah, much as "the lottery is a tax on people who can't do math" gets thrown around, it's a cheap little thrill and money is non-linear. If you're dropping large amounts of money on tickets regularly that's a problem, but if you're comparing buying $5 of lottery tickets vs. $5 of drink now and then the thrill might be about the same, the risk is lower, and the potential reward higher.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:Except that the reality is the reverse. That's the thing. It's not some failing in the nature of the poor. It's that getting used to a sudden change of financial circumstances can be hard. When you're not used to having a lot of money and suddenly do, you're likely not going to be as comfortable with it as someone who's eased into it by wealthy upbringing or a gradual rise of circumstances. One possibility is that you binge on it, because not having the opportunity for long-term planning in the past leaves you with little idea of how to pace yourself or thought of what happens when it runs out. Or even realization of how far you are from running out. Another possibility is that you clamp down and spend as frugally as you did before, even when it's not a good idea for your circumstances. Another is that you figure out how to manage things reasonably. Again, nothing about intrinsic difference so much as sudden change and being in a new situation. Those three possibilities also have corresponding ones for people who suddenly have a sharp drop in income: they might keep spending until they're on the street, they might turn paranoid and overcompensate, or they might figure things out okay. Mind, there's only one of the three that lets you get all smug about how you're better off not even trying to get rich, so is it a wonder those ones get talked about the most?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 08:04
|
|
|
Lotka Volterra posted:What I want to know is: what about before guns? Was every person entitled to a crossbow and before that a pike? Were assault clubs the political issue of the day back in 12000bc? Yes. Restrictions on what weapons which classes should be allowed go back a long time.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Well, the last time there was a rebellion beyond one dude or a family or some American Indians, the military did end up split. The whole thing is still obviously problematic but if a no poo poo civil war kicked off, it's not like the military would be 100% undivided. But this is getting into sci fi gay black Hitler territory that belongs in a self-published fiction thread. Yeah, though applying it more broadly, when countries anywhere have armed rebellion, the military's ability to put it down depends largely on the social/ethnic breakdown of the military. A lot of places geared to cracking down effectively have militaries organized along ethnic lines, or at least by those most invested in the regime in power. The loyal forces get the good arms, the good training, and are the ones assigned to any trouble spots. Units conscripted from less loyal populations get put out in the middle of nowhere, or among a different faction that they won't mind cracking heads with. The common forum fantasy of tanks rolling over tea partiers would also require a whole lot of reinvention of the US military as part of its gay black hitler elements. Unzip and Attack posted:And Saint Ronald Reagan, the First of His Name. Which shouldn't be really surprising. Control of who owns what kinds of guns is traditionally a socially conservative stance in the US, it's just the modern rural/urban split has reversed that since Reagan's generation died off. Mind, the laws, proposals, and rhetoric haven't changed since the Jim Crow days, it's just that it ended up in the Democratic party line rather than Republican despite not being remotely leftist or progressive.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:I don't either. I guess I'm just venting because the hypocrisy is out in the open. It would be interesting to see those guys openly lobbying for young black guys to own fire arms for self defense. They say it will lead to lower violent crime rates so why not? I mean, if they really believe what they say then they should do what they can to arm every law abiding citizen everywhere yet that never happens. I've seen gun rights people talk about how Chicago/DC/etc. should have the same gun rights as Utah or whatever often enough: the standard response from anti-gun types is "but most black people don't want guns, are you going to force them to own them?" Mind, I'm sure if it looked like it was going to happen a lot of those closet racists would come up with sudden justification for why there needs to be some limits, and even others are less thinking about arming black people and more imagining if they were there surrounded by all those "gang members" but unable to legally carry. But it's not like it doesn't come up. People into guns are quite happy to tear down the racist old gun laws to catch the fringe benefits, even the ones who are also doubling down on racist policies that don't affect them at all like voting restrictions and anti-immigrant proposals.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 00:48 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Besides disposable income, are there institutional/systemic barriers to African-Americans arming themselves with guns right now? In addition to the criminal record restrictions others have mentioned, urban areas with large black populations are disproportionately likely to have stricter gun laws than surrounding white suburbs. Additionally, a number of states still have "may-issue" laws for handguns, where the government, usually the county sheriff's office, I think, has to decide whether the applicant really ought to have it. Guess what's still a factor in whether your application is going to be denied?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2015 16:07
|
|