|
Freakazoid_ posted:On the other hand, legalize prostitution. Problem solved. Yeah, commodifying basic human needs is the way forward.
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 11:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 21:50 |
|
|
blowfish posted:See also: countries with legal prostitution that aren't disproportionately terrible to women. Legalize prostitution, sure, but don't imagine it's going to solve anything, or that it's going to make people happy when you tell them to just pay for their needs, especially when they are likely to be poor. As somebody in a country with legalized prostitution, I'm going to say it overwhelmingly attracts irredeemable scumbags, not people with healthy social attitudes, neither does it improve the attitudes of clients. The solution is in improved socialization through strong public institutions so people aren't left out of natural social interactions and don't have to stew in their basements with entirely avoidable anxiety and anger issues. That, not prostitution, is why some countries seem less hate-filled (also I think it's largely an illusion, you just don't see foreign members of the same fringe cliques because they don't share the same spaces as you). porfiria posted:I mean, food is a basic human need too. Food is inherently a commodity, affection is, if anything, turned into a dehumanizing thing when commodified. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 11:56 on Dec 29, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 11:49
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Not quite - there's a poo poo ton of credible alternatives they just don't just Totally Promise to provide the Konami Code to gettin'em wet. PUA is so enticing because it promises even the creepiest motherfucker an even playing field with *rolls extremely dated sexy-man dice* Orlando Bloom. There's a lot of credible alternatives for well adjusted people. The PUA audience aren't well adjusted, they are broken people with a stunted understanding of society and a limited emotional capacity / empathy. Which would be hard to pin on anything but socioeconomic conditions, 90% of the time.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 08:17
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I am feeling really surprised the concept of "they just need to get laid to be more leftist" is getting traction in this thread. It seems like such a school yard insult type of logic. You are looking at it from a wrong angle. Instead consider: There needs to be a more equitable, healthy society for this sort of attitudes to disappear. As long as care for the struggling and unmotivated members of society is lacking, there will be serious dysfunctions, at best on individual level, but also you should expect the afflicted to band together when given a chance to supplement the social outlets they have been lacking thus far. This doesn't mean the bitter people we have now will magically do a 180 if you smile at them, but it means there is no need to reproduce the mistakes of the past.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It's just such a weird link to draw. There is no actual data showing it and it doesn't even match up with common stereotypes. Stereotypes are BAD, and part of a toxic culture that is causing social ills. People are not born with a flaming desire to hate others. And if they are, well, then hating others is the right thing to do, I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:What kind of idiotic naturalistic fallacy is this bollocks? What's the point trying to fight for some idea if everybody is inherently a dirty ape unable to grasp it, except for me, the only immaculately conceived man on Earth.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Neo_Crimson posted:Enough to permanently secure food, housing, medical care, and other necessities with some left over for modest personal luxuries, just like every other job no matter what. Ideally without any actual currency system at all. That's the goal of welfare for the needy, not a model of a just and prosperous society you weirdo.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2016 10:28
|
|
|
In the end-goal society of a radical leftist platform poverty has been eradicated, or is only frictional, i.e. temporary. And people aren't expected to live just barely above poverty because that's not the limit of what sort of life fairly distributed surplus value can buy.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:From what I can parse from your posts, you seem to believe that poor / disadvantaged people are unwilling to care about anyone else, and that asking them to consider the problems of other people will anger and alienate them. Is this true? Why do you believe this? Are you expecting people to invest time into somebody else's agenda when they are struggling to pay their own rent, put food on their own table, or battling the drug epidemic?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 10:26
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:I'm not sure what you mean by "investing time in somebody else's agenda". I do believe it's a good thing to encourage everyone to be aware of the concept of privilege, and for it to be part of the language we use as a country. People are aware of social issues, awareness is useless if people do not have the luxury to act upon it or at least refine it through a dialogue - and it is very much a luxury. Additionally the current nagging of people who have their own problems isn't just asking for them to "be aware", they are being actively vilified and dehumanized for not putting their personal concerns second after what somebody else deemed to be more important than their well being. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 11:07 on Jan 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 11:03
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Where is this happening? Can you point to an example? Seriously? When has "check your privilege" not been used to shut down uppity dissenters? Specifically throughout this election, especially during the Democratic primaries, we even had plenty of this going on here, on SA. Posters like Veskit kept barging into threads and yelling at people to shut up because they were too privileged to be worth listening to, only those who passed the privilege test were to be given franchise. And then people were called racist for making any sort of political analysis because their thoughts were inherently polluted by privilege, and thus unfit for display. The very loving phrase Berniebro was coined to intristically tie Sanders' supporters and privilege, shaming them out of debates for being too regressive for liberal spaces.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:I definitely remember you being way more racist than your rap sheet shows, but I have no idea what gave me that impression. I did know you were also a few other things that got confirmed by that click of mine, but I guess I should apologize to you for thinking "well no poo poo you got called racist". Well, you are racist, I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Not getting shot to death by cops for no reason is one of the privileges that should be checked, though. Correct. Is it productive, in general, to use privilege as a bargaining chip in order to carve out small political fiefdoms where only some people are allowed to really participate, and others only to listen, though? Doesn't it just serve to fragment the politics of a nominally united front, bringing it down into an abyss of impotence and irrelevance? In a world where there are political taboos for some people, there seems to be a huge obstacle to forming a strong political coalition. Privilege is a fine concept on its own, but also a dangerous one if it is used to compartmentalize policy instead of treating it as a holistic whole. I think cop shootings are a bad example in this case, because I believe pretty much everybody nominally on the left is sympathetic to the minority struggle in that area and willing to defer laying out a reform plan to minority activists. So in this case raising awareness of privilege has been an unambiguously positive thing. But then there are other areas where no side can be said to be the sole stakeholder, and that's where rhetorical fencing off of such areas is problematic. So I guess my point is that it makes sense to tell people to gently caress off if they don't hold any substantial, personal interest in an issue. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Jan 3, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
Now how to reconcile this with my (and others') instinctive tendency to filter out wealthy liberal due to their privilege. Hm...
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
Fados posted:Every race in america is victim of police brutality tho, everyone should be able to get on board with that, so even in that case they are doing themselves a disservice by framing it as a race problem. I mean, technically you are right, but at the same time it is pretty natural to see your situation in a context, and observe the huge gap in how much it affects you vs. other groups.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 21:50 |
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:
Jesus Christ. This trend to selectively disregard grievances because somebody is just a fragile little bitch who can't man up (but toxic masculinity is totes a problem that I'm deeply aware of, guys) is a loving cancer.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2017 02:07
|
|