|
mysterious frankie posted:Liberals hate poor people because poor people haven't seen the hit broadway musical hamilton, and so they can't talk with them about how powerful the hit broadway musical hamilton is, and so they feel like they're from two different worlds and distrust them. poor people haven't even bought the soundtrack to the hit broadway musical hamilton, yet they call themselves americans? they suspect these poor people are working with the russians, another group famous for not giving a poo poo about the powerful and moving hit broadway musical hamilton. finally the sublime truth
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 03:09 |
|
|
This argument is dumb because both sides are right When economic segregation herds poor people into living on a toxic waste dump and provides them with lead-filled water in order to cut costs, that is definitely going to cause problems for kids being raised in that environment and we should absolutely look for solutions On the other hand, there are absolutely a ton of people who loving love the idea of something they can portray as a biological basis for poverty, either because they want to believe that poor people inherently deserve to be poor and therefore poverty can't be eliminated, or because they want to pretend that it's the only thing responsible for poverty so that they don't have to address the systematic social and economic issues that are primarily responsible Maybe....The answer.......Is in the middle?  
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:On the other hand, there are absolutely a ton of people who loving love the idea of something they can portray as a biological basis for poverty, either because they want to believe that poor people inherently deserve to be poor and therefore poverty can't be eliminated, or because they want to pretend that it's the only thing responsible for poverty so that they don't have to address the systematic social and economic issues that are primarily responsible I'm beating a dead horse here but nobody* in cog sci thinks poverty is caused by poorbrains. Rather, the stress of being poor and the very different set of priorities causes poorbrains, which can be treated to an extent using cognitive therapy. It is super important to repeat to yourself over and over that poverty causes people to be hosed up, not that hosed up people cause their own poverty. All healthy babies from any socioeconomic rung start off in life basically the same and have the same potential. If you could eliminate poverty you'd also eliminate poorbrains because its an environmental problem, but that problem is much bigger in scope than what researchers can accomplish so theyre doing their best to treat what they can. *As always, assholes exist. Some scientists still deny climate change.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:I'm beating a dead horse here but nobody* in cog sci thinks poverty is caused by poorbrains. A lot of people who aren't in cog sci think this, though unless I skimmed the last couple pages of angry pedantry wrong, no one is worried that the scientists think poverty is a mental problem. they're worried that scientific acknowledgement of poorbrains will be used by elites and the media as an excuse to slash anti-poverty programs and dismiss calls for social and economic change. the scientists themselves will not agree with this, but they also have absolutely no say in how the talking heads will abuse their research we shouldn't let that danger lure us into something as stupid as opposing research into the health consequences of poverty. we just need to remember to emphasize the social and economic causes of poverty while also researching ways to stop poverty from literally breaking and killing people
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
The worst part is there have been experiments done with animals on poverty and enrichment in terms of food and stimuli, which establish the causation of the exact same correlation we see in humans, but that research would be totally ignored. It's the reason why places with bigger welfare states have more social mobility by the way, which is seen as an absolute paradox by people who want to cut the social safety net.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
every local news station in the country is currently prepping a "scientists say people in poverty are stupid, more at 11" story and you're worried about what the Scientists are thinking buddy nobody gives a poo poo about the scientists
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
Fullhouse posted:every local news station in the country is currently prepping a "scientists say people in poverty are stupid, more at 11" story and you're worried about what the Scientists are thinking And this is why I go off the deep end about this poo poo when it comes up. Its incredibly important to make the point accurately because it is so easily misunderstood, especially by people with an agenda. E: They would have just found some other reason to not give a poo poo about poor people anyways though. You can't not talk about poo poo that affects poor people because it might be used as fuel for the people who want to dismiss poor people. They want to dismiss poor people, they'll find a way. Welfare queens don't exist and welfare fraud is a meaningless fraction of corporate fraud but idiots still insist they're rampant problems dragging down America. You can't judge your policy around what the people who hate your policy will think. Nix Panicus fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Apr 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Are you anti-vax? Do you think global warming is a hoax perpetrated to stifle American industry? Is PTSD just being a big baby in your world? Poor peoples' brains are the wrong shape. Its science.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
rudatron posted:So there's this tendency, in some quarters, to think that you have to overturn everything to start the process of change. The assumption being that everything that comes before has embedded within the social conditions that created it, ie "the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house". i like it, and i'm following your reasoning
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 10:26
|
|
|
Lindsey O. Graham posted:i like it, and i'm following your reasoning Same. Related; What's with the idea that anyone who isn't a flag waving Red being a Liberal? A lot of ya'll are taking positions from Goldwater Republicans to Moderate Dems, and tarring the poo poo out of liberals with them. Democrats didn't magic Full Communism Now into existance? Clearly they must be just Republicans in disguise, out to kill the poor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Democrats didn't prosecute criminal bankers the multitude of times they violated the laws these 8 years? Clearly they must be just Republicans in disguise, out to kill the poor. unironically ftfy
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Same.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Same. It's necessary to accurately identify liberalism as an ideology distinct from socialism, communism, etc. What you are objecting to is simply a return to the classical use of the term to indicate utopian capitalism. This is good, because using it as a synonym for "progressive" has stifled diversity within the Left while enabling the efforts of the Right to tar all progressives with the same brush.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Surely the American Socialist (or Green, or Whomever) party will make mass gains in the coming elections, as The People suddenly realize that they don't need any funding whatsoever to campaign with and sweep elections solely by being right about the problems of the world. The People will definitely reward them for their correctness with votes and loyalty.Hodgepodge posted:It's necessary to accurately identify liberalism as an ideology distinct from socialism, communism, etc. What you are objecting to is simply a return to the classical use of the term to indicate utopian capitalism. This is good, because using it as a synonym for "progressive" has stifled diversity within the Left while enabling the efforts of the Right to tar all progressives with the same brush. This is actually a much more understandable viewpoint, even if I don't agree with it. A lot of folks want to keep capitalism, and use aspects of socialism to alleviate the worst excesses of it, while still benefitting from the innovations and choices that come with it. I'd posit that most "liberals" are this way, even if they wouldn't call the policies they want Socialist. Talmonis fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Apr 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
Jesus Christ just shut the gently caress up. You don't get to bitch about purity tests or whatever after losing the easiest election in history.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
talmonis is real real angry that his ideology is dying
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Jesus Christ just shut the gently caress up. You don't get to bitch about purity tests or whatever after losing the easiest election in history. Purity tests are the exact reason it was lost. Clinton wasn't a communist? Better not vote at all then. Fuckin' accelerationists.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
If only there was something Clinton could have done to get people to vote for her. But there was just nothing she could do. She could do nothing. She did nothing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
how would you identify the ideology of Hillary Clinton without linking to her website
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Surely the American Socialist (or Green, or Whomever) party will make mass gains in the coming elections, as The People suddenly realize that they don't need any funding whatsoever to campaign with and sweep elections solely by being right about the problems of the world. The People will definitely reward them for their correctness with votes and loyalty. Or maybe people will simply be able to identify and organize around actual variations in ideals and preferences within the Democratic Party instead of watching the party wither and die as fewer and fewer actual people are represented by its leadership and an larger portion of its remaining votes are motivated by horror at the Republicans rather than any desire to see its candidates in power. Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Apr 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Or maybe people will simply be able to identify and organize around actual variations in ideals and preferences within the Democratic Party instead of watching the party wither and die as fewer and fewer actual people are represented by its leadership and an larger portion of its rrmaining votes are motivated by horror at the Republicans rather than any desire to see its candidates in power. I agree with you. This isn't what seems to be the consensus here though. Fullhouse posted:how would you identify the ideology of Hillary Clinton without linking to her website lovely neo-liberal politician whose name is not Donald loving Trump. Really, there shouldn't need to be more reasons than to stop a lunatic from gaining power.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:lovely neo-liberal politician why on Earth would I, an American citizen who does not wear a lanyard for his job, want to vote for one of these
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Fullhouse posted:why on Earth would I, an American citizen who does not wear a lanyard for his job, want to vote for one of these To ensure the Supreme Court doesn't fall into a generation of darkness. To keep needed funding for those few programs we have left that help folks survive. To staff vital agencies with the right people for the job, who actually believe in the mission statements of said job. Environmental protection in any way, shape or form. Maintaining global stability, such as it is. Plenty more.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
This maybe isn't a good place for you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:To ensure the Supreme Court doesn't fall into a generation of darkness. To keep needed funding for those few programs we have left that help folks survive. To staff vital agencies with the right people for the job, who actually believe in the mission statements of said job. Environmental protection in any way, shape or form. Maintaining global stability, such as it is. Plenty more. no that's why he shouldn't vote for trump. why should he vote for the neoliberal
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Like I was saying in another thread, Trump is on balance more of a neoliberal than Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:To ensure the Supreme Court doesn't fall into a generation of darkness. To keep needed funding for those few programs we have left that help folks survive. To staff vital agencies with the right people for the job, who actually believe in the mission statements of said job. Environmental protection in any way, shape or form. Maintaining global stability, such as it is. Plenty more. Also LMAO at Clinton maintaining global stability. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlz3-OzcExI
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
I'd argue that the biggest failure of the Hillary campaign is that she really didn't have anything more than a perfunctory ideology, no matter how many detailed policy positions her staff put up on the website, or no ideology beyond "I really should be president and have more power than I have now". It's pretty similar to Romney in 2012, in its own twisted way, what with how "severely conservative" he tried to be. As for the climate here, I wouldn't take this place as representative of anything. It's fun to argue with the communists and other assorted non-voters and third-party voters, and I'm sure they think it's fun to argue with us and point out how Hillary put on a master class in how to mismanage a campaign and be a bad candidate. That said, I'm never gonna stop telling them to suck it up and vote, and to go get involved in local politics, because I really do think that it's the best way for them to actually make what they want happen. And getting to be all smug about knowing what's best is a nice side-benefit of arguing politics with needs on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
lol the liberals still putting on the "daddy knows best" Serious Arguments and acting all smug when your failure of an ideology just cost you the most important and winnable election in a hundred years
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
She wasn't just a bad candidate, the Hillary Clinton campaign was the worst presidential campaign in Democratic party history.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
im extremely smart and good at politics, which is why the the dems have lost 1000 seats in 8 years and the presidency to donald trump. if only those drat voters realized it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Jeb! Repetition posted:Like I was saying in another thread, Trump is on balance more of a neoliberal than Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:I follow politics and I am still having trouble understanding what people mean when they say "neoliberal", because some of the time it means "whatever the person thinks Hillary would have theoretically stood for if she'd won" and sometimes it is "warhawk populist Democrat" and sometimes it is "capitalist Democrat" and so statements like that just end up being meaningless to me. I was using the academic definition of essentially free trade + austerity + deregulation, but I can't speak for anybody else.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:I follow politics and I am still having trouble understanding what people mean when they say "neoliberal", because some of the time it means "whatever the person thinks Hillary would have theoretically stood for if she'd won" and sometimes it is "warhawk populist Democrat" and sometimes it is "capitalist Democrat" and so statements like that just end up being meaningless to me. https://twitter.com/deray/status/854895290104545281
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:She wasn't just a bad candidate, the Hillary Clinton campaign was the worst presidential campaign in Democratic party history.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
do u think deray is still waiting
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
Yeah, the responses on that pretty much sum it up. However, I should have also included that some people use it like "hipster", to mean some kind of insufferable person. Gonna still stand by it being utterly meaningless, at least until someone actually comes out and proudly calls themselves neoliberal and owns the label.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:I agree with you. This isn't what seems to be the consensus here though. "hmm, I know that someone is currently plunging a knife deep into my chest, but I should go vote for the 'status quo' candidate who wants that to continue, otherwise someone who wants to shoot me in the head might win the election"
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:Aside from maybe McGovern in 1972, you're right. No. McGovern ran a better campaign. Azathoth posted:Yeah, the responses on that pretty much sum it up. However, I should have also included that some people use it like "hipster", to mean some kind of insufferable person. Well you're pretty insufferable for one. Secondly, nobody is going to proudly own neoliberalism because it's an ideology that's garbage on its face. It only maintains traction because there's a lot of money to be made in realizing its politics. That's why neoliberals are always the people who claim that neoliberalism doesn't exist, or that it can't even be adequately defined. That it's a meaningless buzzword.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 03:09 |
|
|
Azathoth posted:Yeah, the responses on that pretty much sum it up. However, I should have also included that some people use it like "hipster", to mean some kind of insufferable person. Adam Smith Institute. https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=...zc4PJGeFZqF9uFQ
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 21:35
|
|
