|
Liberalism has always had this under current of social darwinism to it, that if a society is sufficiently free under liberals ideas of natural rights, every injustice is actually justified It's not that they hate poor people, but that they're okay with that suffering, if they can convince themselves that the poors deserve it - ie they're indifferent The systemic cause of issues aren't ever taken seriously, it's all about individual virtue
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 09:21 |
|
|
Ie Trump voters are Bad/Racist, and that's why trump won But liberals did absolutely jack poo poo about ensuring rural poors had a decent living, so that they couldn't get suckered in by charlatans promising the moon instead, they made things worse with trade deals, and then wonder why their promises ring hollow They created the the preconditions for Trump, they gave him fertile ground But they will never take responsibility for that, because that would mean thinking about how the system quirks as a whole, it would mean dropping virtue politics
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 01:46
|
|
|
Yeah, Hillary Clintom trying so hard to appeal to Republican suburbanites, makes me think the centrist secret fantasy is to jettison poors out of the democratic party entirely. At this point, the 'heart' of the party isn't with low income earners, its silicon valley + hollywood + big business, they're the only ones setting the agenda.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
mysterious frankie posted:So is this thread about leftists hating poor people or liberals now?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
That's literally the stupidest take possible.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
For mature human beings, being aware that people are products of their environment, tempers stupid & immature emotional reactions like hatred of a group of people. Rationalizing hatred as reverse-double progressiveness just means that you haven't actually internalized that fact - you're looking for an excuse for your emotional reactions, rather than challenging them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
Lindsey O. Graham posted:no, it's when they lost the racist vote during LBJ's administration
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
Yeah because stepping down isn't 'losing', right? Vietnam had a bigger effect, because the draft convinced liberals that 'big government' was bad/could not be used as an instrument of progress. So the role of the politican shifted from being someone with a vision, using state instruments & popular support to achieve that vision (populism), to what amounts to 'civic managers' who do as little as possible, and leave the 'dreaming' to the private sector. Turns out, the society that corporations dream of is a literal dystopia.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
The 'racists killed populism' is nothing but a convenient lie liberals tell themselves - they killed it, with their own hands.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
"You can take control of your life!" is just the patronizing flip side of "You're poor because you're stupid and lazy!".
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
I don't think anyone is bashing the researchers, nor the programs that can presumably help the poor. But reread that article. Running through it is the assumption that poverty is created by people Not Taking Control of they're lives, and this program Helps Teach Them. It shifts the burden of blame, from a society that creates poverty and economic inequality, which does gently caress people up mentally, onto those poverty. For a lot of people lives, the majority of their welfare factually is out of their control. Eg- You can throw around as many resumes as you want, but whether you find employment is not up to you. It's outside your power. That this state of affairs 'teaches' those in poverty that they are powerless, is not insanity, but normal brain function - learning from past experiences to inform future ones. It's not something that can be cured, anymore than you can cure people of any other learning skill (eg- playing the guitar). Its just what the brain does, by default. Telling them that their position is a consequence of them not exercising their power, however much charitable liberal stuff you couch that in, is just not believable.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 08:52
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:I think there's an additional element to this in that rank and file liberals who will never be rich, still support this mindset because they assume that it's politically impossible to overcome the power of moneyed interests.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 08:57
|
|
|
I'm not making GBS threads on the research dude, I'm just averse to medicalizing/pathologizing what's a social condition. I'm sure this will help people deal with problems, but it's treating a symptom. I'm doubtful such measures are actually going to make people 'escape' poverty, but perhaps make it more livable/survivable.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 09:24
|
|
|
Guys, take a step back. No one is blaming or mocking the researchers, or suggesting that their programs aren't helpful. My point wasn't about the research itself, but the way it's being framed. I'm not seeing any real disagreement here. Chill.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 10:01
|
|
|
But neither you nor I have the power to choose between these schemes and real economic security. They're better than nothing, so I'm not going to complain that they merely exist. They're just not a substitute for real social change. That's the way they should be seen.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 10:09
|
|
|
I think you're over-estimating the effect of these schemes. Anti-depressants don't make you mindless slaves, easily manipulated or whatever. That's not an actual side effect.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 10:16
|
|
|
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". While the supposition is correct (things like science and technology are not immune to ideology - what gets funded and what doesn't depends on whether or not it is of value to people with the money), the conclusion is not. Whenever you are in a desperate situation, you have to use whatever is at your disposal. The seeds of the new society, lie dormant, in the products of the old. So whatever tool can be used, should be used. So if this scheme helps people in poverty adapt + survive, I'm not going to be against it. You framed it as something that 'numbs' you to pain, and therefore reduces the possibility of social revolution. But I'm not so sure that's the case. I don't think it's a lack of 'pain' that's preventing revolution.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 10:35
|
|
|
You joke, but that's kinda the better way of thinking about it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 10:42
|
|
|
Condiv, do you know where the 'robot' comes from? It comes from a play called Rossum's Universal Robots. But the play doesn't describe mechanical men. The 'robots' in the play are more similar to something like clones. But they have one feature - they don't feel pain. Because of this, they make ideal slaves, and that's what they're used for. Do you want to guess how that play ends? Perhaps making people fear death less, or be less anxious in a critical situation, makes them better able to survive terrible conditions. But do you know what it also does? It makes them better soldiers.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 11:00
|
|
|
Like I said, It's not for a lack of 'pain' that positive social change is difficult. Plenty of people are already hurting. As long as people can recognize their interests, and how that interest is shared with people in a similar situation, revolution is always possible, and nothing here is going to change that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 11:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 09:21 |
|
|
Venom Snake posted:The truth is very little elected officials hold any true ideology beyond what is enforced by their own perceptions of electability (which can easily be warped). "Neo-liberalism" is the default setting for most because it's as bland and unoffensive as possible. The stupid thing is that the average person is far less right wing than the democratic party thinks. That is ideology at work.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2017 00:53
|
|