http://www.tennessean.com/article/20130404/NEWS0201/304040068/TN-bill-linking-welfare-benefits-grades-passes-House-committee
QuoteAfter a lengthy and passionate debate, a House committee on Wednesday approved legislation that would reduce welfare benefits for families whose children are failing school.
The House Health Committee voted 10-8 in favor of House Bill 261. The measure would cut Temporary Assistance for Needy Families payments if a child fails a grade and a parent does not take an action such as attending two parent-teacher conferences, arranging tutoring, enrolling the child in summer school or taking a parenting class.
TANF payments would be reduced to the child-only grant, about $140 for a family with one child.
This bill was sponsored by Stacey Campfield, the Tennessee state senator known for this gem of a comment on AIDS:
Quote"most people realize that AIDS came from the homosexual community – it was one guy screwing a monkey, if I recall correctly, and then having sex with men. It was an airline pilot, if I recall.... My understanding is that it is virtually – not completely, but virtually – impossible to contract AIDS through heterosexual sex...very rarely [transmitted]."[29][30] He later quoted the odds of heterosexual vaginal transmission at 1 in 5 million.
Also, the "Don't Say Gay" bill which would have banned schools from even mentioning homosexuality, and another bill that would have required teachers to report to parents if a student revealed to them that they were gay. Fortunately, both of those bills failed.
Somebody at least had the sense to add an amendment that would exempt families who attend at least two parent-teacher conferences a year, enroll their child in a tutoring program, enroll a failing child in summer school, or if the student has a learning disability, but that wasn't Campfield's idea.
They're
just trying to help, though, of course.
QuoteI can't stress enough how my heart goes out for a child that is not getting the support that he needs at home," said state Rep. Barry Doss, R-Leoma. "But I am more concerned about the child starving for a lifetime than I am for a few days, because if these children don't get an education and the parents are not going to be responsible enough, they're going to be burdened for a lifetime.
WooooooWooooooo!
ALL ABOARD THE BOO-BOO BUS!
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 04, 2013, 08:31:47 PM
QuoteI can't stress enough how my heart goes out for a child that is not getting the support that he needs at home," said state Rep. Barry Doss, R-Leoma. "But I am more concerned about the child starving for a lifetime than I am for a few days, because if these children don't get an education and the parents are not going to be responsible enough, they're going to be burdened for a lifetime.
But I am more concerned about the child starving for a lifetime than I am for a few days, because
But I am more concerned about the child starving for a lifetime than I am for a few days, because But I am more concerned about the child starving for a lifetime than I am for a few days, because
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 04, 2013, 08:38:18 PM
WooooooWooooooo!
ALL ABOARD THE BOO-BOO BUS!
"I'm late."
"Yeah, get on the bus."
"You said you'd fire me if I was late again."
"We're too busy. Get on the bus."
"YOU PROMISED YOU'D FIRE ME."
"I'll fire you next week, get on the bus."
I just snarfed e-juice out my nose in the Student Union.
Now the Magic Card players are looking at me.
Fortunately, after a few days, you don't really have to worry about the child starving anymore.
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 04, 2013, 09:24:21 PM
I just snarfed e-juice out my nose in the Student Union.
Now the Magic Card players are looking at me.
I assume you caught the reference?
Quote from: Cain on April 04, 2013, 09:32:56 PM
Fortunately, after a few days, you don't really have to worry about the child starving anymore.
Yeah.
Well, I'm just glad to live in the BEST NATION ON EARTH.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 04, 2013, 08:50:17 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 04, 2013, 08:31:47 PM
QuoteI can't stress enough how my heart goes out for a child that is not getting the support that he needs at home," said state Rep. Barry Doss, R-Leoma. "But I am more concerned about the child starving for a lifetime than I am for a few days, because if these children don't get an education and the parents are not going to be responsible enough, they're going to be burdened for a lifetime.
But I am more concerned about the child starving for a lifetime than I am for a few days, because
But I am more concerned about the child starving for a lifetime than I am for a few days, because
But I am more concerned about the child starving for a lifetime than I am for a few days, because
STOP THE FUCKING PLANET AND LET ME OFF. NOW.
Awesome. God Bless America.
There's no HA HA left in my HAW HAW :(
I posted the OP article on facebook and now I'm arguing with someone who thinks its a fine idea because they can jump through hoops to avoid losing the aid. If it's the irresponsible parents fault their child is failing what makes you think they'll be responsible enough to attend parent teacher conferences and set up tutoring!
On the plus side the argument made me think about how little I know about how welfare works. I realize posting this here is like pointing out that water is wet, but an interesting article pointing out welfare myths: http://dailynewsfinder.com/2012/11/21/facts-and-myths-about-welfare/
Before i start, i state clearly the 4 options for the continuement of the money support:
a) Parent attending two parent-teacher conferences
b) Arranging tutoring for the child
c) Enrolling the child in summer school
d) (Parent) taking a parenting class.
Let that sink in for a moment before you read further:
In my bachelor's degree thesis (270 pages including the interviews) what teachers mostly spoke of the reasons behind the existance of "bad students" remitted to family: parents don't spend enough time with their children, parents are teaching the wrong values, parents are lazy and don't provide enough money to nurture, parents are abusive, etc., while also turning a blind eye to their own blame in the process and turning a blind eye to the systemic failures of the educational system.
B and C are fine options, because they give academic support for the child.
A and D underlyingly say "You are a bad parent, and you should feel bad about it, we are going to teach you the right values so you can teach them respectively to your child". And that is 50% of the options.
Cain, if you by any chance have access to the database of the failed forum, i request a repost of the thread i made there about my findings in my thesis that i shared, since its a topic that has been touched upon recently here.
I'm on food stamps and it would seriously make everything worse for all of us if I had to take time out of my classes so that I could meet with my son's teacher about the fact that the homework they assign is boring, redundant makework and that the way they grade means that even if he gets an A on every test because he knows the material inside and out (he does), they will still fail him if he doesn't turn in the homework, and that the only reason I'm making him go to at all is because his father won't let me unschool him until it's time to send him to college.
Quote from: V3X on April 05, 2013, 12:50:38 AM
There's no HA HA left in my HAW HAW :(
Plenty of HEE HAW, though.
Quote from: stelz on April 05, 2013, 04:17:09 AM
Quote from: V3X on April 05, 2013, 12:50:38 AM
There's no HA HA left in my HAW HAW :(
Plenty of HEE HAW, though.
Nothing
but HEE HAW, as far as the eye can see.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/04/school-forces-25-hungry-students-to-throw-away-lunches-when-they-couldnt-pay/
QuoteA group Massachusetts parents are outraged and at least one worker has been placed on administrative leave after about 25 students Robert J. Coelho Middle School in Attleboro were forced to throw away their lunches over concerns that they could not pay for the food.
Parents said that some students cried and went home hungry.
School officials told The Sun Chronicle that Whitson's, the contractor responsible for providing lunches, made the decision to stop students from eating their lunch if there was not enough credit in the student's pre-paid account or they were not able to provide cash for the meal.
Superintendent Pia Durkin on Wednesday said that the on-site director had been placed on administrative leave and Whitson's had been instructed not to deny lunch to any student in the future.
"There is no way any child in my school district will ever go hungry," Durkin insisted. "Children need to eat."
Food seems set to increasingly become a privilege within the school systems. I've got a feeling that this will eventually tie into the prison link somewhere. Hungry kids will not always wait patiently until they get home. It might not be this district but I would be surprised if a kid isn't charged with some kind of food related theft by the end of the year. I'd be a little surprised if that hasn't already occurred.
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 05, 2013, 12:42:48 PM
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/04/school-forces-25-hungry-students-to-throw-away-lunches-when-they-couldnt-pay/
QuoteA group Massachusetts parents are outraged and at least one worker has been placed on administrative leave after about 25 students Robert J. Coelho Middle School in Attleboro were forced to throw away their lunches over concerns that they could not pay for the food.
Parents said that some students cried and went home hungry.
School officials told The Sun Chronicle that Whitson's, the contractor responsible for providing lunches, made the decision to stop students from eating their lunch if there was not enough credit in the student's pre-paid account or they were not able to provide cash for the meal.
Superintendent Pia Durkin on Wednesday said that the on-site director had been placed on administrative leave and Whitson's had been instructed not to deny lunch to any student in the future.
"There is no way any child in my school district will ever go hungry," Durkin insisted. "Children need to eat."
Food seems set to increasingly become a privilege within the school systems. I've got a feeling that this will eventually tie into the prison link somewhere. Hungry kids will not always wait patiently until they get home. It might not be this district but I would be surprised if a kid isn't charged with some kind of food related theft by the end of the year. I'd be a little surprised if that hasn't already occurred.
D: I can completely see that happening. Food theft, zero tolerance!
It's a good thing food isn't necessary for concentration or anything, and learning on an empty stomach just makes you more hungry for knowledge and not, like, unable to concentrate or anything.
Quote from: Cain on April 05, 2013, 05:39:00 PM
It's a good thing food isn't necessary for concentration or anything, and learning on an empty stomach just makes you more hungry for knowledge and not, like, unable to concentrate or anything.
I'm certain there have
been no studies whatsoever demonstrating the above.
It's also well known that malnourished workers are harder workers. That's why all these emerging economies are doing so well.
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 05, 2013, 12:42:48 PM
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/04/school-forces-25-hungry-students-to-throw-away-lunches-when-they-couldnt-pay/
QuoteA group Massachusetts parents are outraged and at least one worker has been placed on administrative leave after about 25 students Robert J. Coelho Middle School in Attleboro were forced to throw away their lunches over concerns that they could not pay for the food.
Parents said that some students cried and went home hungry.
School officials told The Sun Chronicle that Whitson's, the contractor responsible for providing lunches, made the decision to stop students from eating their lunch if there was not enough credit in the student's pre-paid account or they were not able to provide cash for the meal.
Superintendent Pia Durkin on Wednesday said that the on-site director had been placed on administrative leave and Whitson's had been instructed not to deny lunch to any student in the future.
"There is no way any child in my school district will ever go hungry," Durkin insisted. "Children need to eat."
Food seems set to increasingly become a privilege within the school systems. I've got a feeling that this will eventually tie into the prison link somewhere. Hungry kids will not always wait patiently until they get home. It might not be this district but I would be surprised if a kid isn't charged with some kind of food related theft by the end of the year. I'd be a little surprised if that hasn't already occurred.
This makes me kind of want to hurl.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 05, 2013, 05:03:01 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 05, 2013, 12:42:48 PM
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/04/school-forces-25-hungry-students-to-throw-away-lunches-when-they-couldnt-pay/
QuoteA group Massachusetts parents are outraged and at least one worker has been placed on administrative leave after about 25 students Robert J. Coelho Middle School in Attleboro were forced to throw away their lunches over concerns that they could not pay for the food.
Parents said that some students cried and went home hungry.
School officials told The Sun Chronicle that Whitson's, the contractor responsible for providing lunches, made the decision to stop students from eating their lunch if there was not enough credit in the student's pre-paid account or they were not able to provide cash for the meal.
Superintendent Pia Durkin on Wednesday said that the on-site director had been placed on administrative leave and Whitson's had been instructed not to deny lunch to any student in the future.
"There is no way any child in my school district will ever go hungry," Durkin insisted. "Children need to eat."
Food seems set to increasingly become a privilege within the school systems. I've got a feeling that this will eventually tie into the prison link somewhere. Hungry kids will not always wait patiently until they get home. It might not be this district but I would be surprised if a kid isn't charged with some kind of food related theft by the end of the year. I'd be a little surprised if that hasn't already occurred.
D: I can completely see that happening. Food theft, zero tolerance!
SCHOOLS MUST BUDGET FOR FOOD SNIFFING DOGS NOT FREE LUNCH
Related note: http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/05/17616402-boehner-obama-holding-entitlement-reform-hostage-for-tax-hikes?lite
Apparently, Obama is holding "entitlement reform" hostage, meaning that the GOP cannot force old people to live under bridges, unless they agree to raise taxes.
That bastard!
I can understand opposition to the "gay" bill, but what is exactly so wrong with suspending state-aid to people who don't maintain productivity?
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 08:13:10 PM
I can understand opposition to the "gay" bill, but what is exactly so wrong with suspending state-aid to people who don't maintain productivity?
Because aid us aid, not incentive to.produce.
You either take care of those who cannot care for themselves or you take care of your political backers
Quote from: Alty on April 07, 2013, 08:14:53 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 08:13:10 PM
I can understand opposition to the "gay" bill, but what is exactly so wrong with suspending state-aid to people who don't maintain productivity?
Because aid us aid, not incentive to.produce.
You either take care of those who cannot care for themselves or you take care of your political backers
I always rationalised aid programs under the notion that one is providing aid in order to allow a person not to starve to death while they try to become independent, productive individuals. Naturally, for the permanently disabled, this is not the case, but for "poor assistance", isn't "give them a crutch until they're productive" kinda the point?
If it isn't, and this "aid is aid" attitude is how things "should be", then I'm kinda seeing the whole aid system as being kinda full of fail and AIDS in its entirety. This sort of thinking leads to an unfeasible aid system, wherein there is no incentive to contribute productively, and all the incentive in the world to leech from aid...'least that's how I've been seeing it...
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 08:13:10 PM
I can understand opposition to the "gay" bill, but what is exactly so wrong with suspending state-aid to people who don't maintain productivity?
Because that's a completely facetious connection, built on prejudice against the poor.
Because it can only lead to doing more damage to "productivity," by creating a positive feedback loop of undernourishment and poor academic performance. Despite the availability of cheap calories in America, it's extremely difficult for the poor to maintain a healthy diet.
Because it rests on the assumption that the best way to enforce good behavior in the populace is to hit them in their wallets (which is, of course, an act of communist oppression if you do the same thing to the wealthy).
Because it's goddamn
evil.
Requiring drug tests in order to receive welfare is also based on prejudice against the poor, but at least it's only stupidly counterproductive and merely an act of typical corruption on the part of the firms the administer the drug tests. Threatening a child with hunger for underachieving and having parents who can't or won't get involved in their kid's education is actually evil.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 08:25:02 PM
Quote from: Alty on April 07, 2013, 08:14:53 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 08:13:10 PM
I can understand opposition to the "gay" bill, but what is exactly so wrong with suspending state-aid to people who don't maintain productivity?
Because aid us aid, not incentive to.produce.
You either take care of those who cannot care for themselves or you take care of your political backers
I always rationalised aid programs under the notion that one is providing aid in order to allow a person not to starve to death while they try to become independent, productive individuals. Naturally, for the permanently disabled, this is not the case, but for "poor assistance", isn't "give them a crutch until they're productive" kinda the point?
If it isn't, and this "aid is aid" attitude is how things "should be", then I'm kinda seeing the whole aid system as being kinda full of fail and AIDS in its entirety. This sort of thinking leads to an unfeasible aid system, wherein there is no incentive to contribute productively, and all the incentive in the world to leech from aid...'least that's how I've been seeing it...
Taking aid away as penalty for failing to live up to some standard of productivity will never lead to a more prosperous society. The pitiful amount of money it takes to keep a human being from complete destitution is far less than the cost of having a class of people living in complete desperation.
But y'know, gotta punish those lazy fuckers for daring to have a low standard of living, right? Especially their brats.
Quote from: Cainad on April 07, 2013, 08:28:14 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 08:13:10 PM
I can understand opposition to the "gay" bill, but what is exactly so wrong with suspending state-aid to people who don't maintain productivity?
Because that's a completely facetious connection, built on prejudice against the poor.
Because it can only lead to doing more damage to "productivity," by creating a positive feedback loop of undernourishment and poor academic performance. Despite the availability of cheap calories in America, it's extremely difficult for the poor to maintain a healthy diet.
Because it rests on the assumption that the best way to enforce good behavior in the populace is to hit them in their wallets (which is, of course, an act of communist oppression if you do the same thing to the wealthy).
Because it's goddamn evil.
Requiring drug tests in order to receive welfare is also based on prejudice against the poor, but at least it's only stupidly counterproductive and merely an act of typical corruption on the part of the firms the administer the drug tests. Threatening a child with hunger for underachieving and having parents who can't or won't get involved in their kid's education is actually evil.
Hmm, Ok, I can follow you with the feedback loop idea... I'm reading it as essentially, hunger=less productivity. This makes sense to me, and I can totally agree with you on this.
When you start on about the drug testing things, though, you totally lose me. How is this oppression against "the poor"? This seems more of "oppressing" drug addicts more than anything. Although I can rationalise that being poor could technically arise simply due to poor market conidtions (i.e. my parents live in dirt-poverty and debt literally because my father worked in a industry that collapsed with the housing market), which are totally uncontrollable by the individual, drug use is wholly voluntary.
I don't know, this just doesn't seem rationalisable to me. I don't want to pay more of my own meager wages in taxes to help "rehabilitate" some crackhead, when I've got my own family to provide care for.
By making drug testing mandatory for aid, you are going to automatically going to ensure a certain percentage will never apply due to the stigma.
The majority will test clean (As the majority of the population is) and those who do not will 1- Get no aid 2-Now much more likely to enter the prison system.
Cost saved is negligible to the expense. The only possible winners are contractors and administrators.
The problem is covered in perfectly here:
QuoteI don't know, this just doesn't seem rationalisable to me. I don't want to pay more of my own meager wages in taxes to help "rehabilitate" some crackhead, when I've got my own family to provide care for.
In one swoop, everyone involved in benefits claims is now a crackhead needing rehab. That's exactly the kind of stigma we need right now isn't it?
It's putting people on welfare through a humiliating and potentially worthless set of tests, designed to see if they meet arbitrary standards of being the "moral poor". I mean, what's the contention here? That people addicted to drugs don't starve? They're probably financing their habit through crime anyway, it's not like the welfare system pays enough to sustain a long-term drug habit.
And you know what? If it was put in place it would almost certainly cost more to set up and run the entire drug testing system than would be saved by catching the few crackheads trying to cheat the system. Who wins? The labs doing the tests. Not the taxpayer, not the people on welfare and not drug addicts.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 08:42:21 PM
Hmm, Ok, I can follow you with the feedback loop idea... I'm reading it as essentially, hunger=less productivity. This makes sense to me, and I can totally agree with you on this.
When you start on about the drug testing things, though, you totally lose me. How is this oppression against "the poor"? This seems more of "oppressing" drug addicts more than anything. Although I can rationalise that being poor could technically arise simply due to poor market conidtions (i.e. my parents live in dirt-poverty and debt literally because my father worked in a industry that collapsed with the housing market), which are totally uncontrollable by the individual, drug use is wholly voluntary.
I don't know, this just doesn't seem rationalisable to me. I don't want to pay more of my own meager wages in taxes to help "rehabilitate" some crackhead, when I've got my own family to provide care for.
Because the amount of tax dollars spent on testing is greater than the amount of tax dollars saved by keeping welfare away from drug users.
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/9-investigates-welfare-drug-testing/nFPB3/
QuoteDCF said it has been referring applicants to clinics where drug screenings cost between $30 and $35. The applicant pays for the test out of his or her own pocket and then the state reimburses him if they test comes back negative.
Therefore, the 38 applicants in the Central Florida area, who tested negative, were reimbursed at least $30 each and cost taxpayers $1,140.
Meanwhile, the state is saving less than $240 a month by refusing benefits to those two applicants who tested positive.
It's a rationalization that is divorced from reality. The reality is that it punishes people for being in poverty, at essentially zero benefit to those not in poverty.
It does, however, reinforce the notion that all poor people are potential criminals.
Quote from: Cain on April 07, 2013, 08:58:33 PM
It does, however, reinforce the notion that all poor people are potential criminals.
Damn right it does. What better way to alienate them from the portion of the population that's only one or two missed paychecks away from being in the same boat?
Even better, it self re-inforces to those most in need that to get aid you must go and sit, wait, be in the presence of and possibly breathe the same air as a dirty aids infested junkie that is screwing the system for their next fix.
You're not one of them are you? So go try harder to get a job.
It will make welfare even shittier. You'll only know how shitty once you've danced like a russian bear for enough to eat then remember about the rent.
It will turn "potential criminals" into actual criminals. Just wait.
I seem to recall reading a book once, wherein the fear and mistrust of the impoverished class was a critical part of maintaining social control over the just-barely middle class citizens. Written by some Orwell schmuck, I think.
Maybe all the poor should be put under parole, you know, just in case. We cannot put a price on crime prevention.
Quote from: Cainad on April 07, 2013, 09:07:07 PM
I seem to recall reading a book once, wherein the fear and mistrust of the impoverished class was a critical part of maintaining social control over the just-barely middle class citizens. Written by some Orwell schmuck, I think.
Criminalize those that are vulnerable and cannot defend themselves, and that will set an example of "what you should and what you shouldn't do" to others, that if targeted, might actually be able to defend themselves.
Quote from: The Johnny on April 07, 2013, 09:07:35 PM
Maybe all the poor should be put under parole, you know, just in case. We cannot put a price on crime prevention.
Laugh it up, in 10 years the US will have parole officers for the unemployed.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 08:42:21 PM
Quote from: Cainad on April 07, 2013, 08:28:14 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 08:13:10 PM
I can understand opposition to the "gay" bill, but what is exactly so wrong with suspending state-aid to people who don't maintain productivity?
Because that's a completely facetious connection, built on prejudice against the poor.
Because it can only lead to doing more damage to "productivity," by creating a positive feedback loop of undernourishment and poor academic performance. Despite the availability of cheap calories in America, it's extremely difficult for the poor to maintain a healthy diet.
Because it rests on the assumption that the best way to enforce good behavior in the populace is to hit them in their wallets (which is, of course, an act of communist oppression if you do the same thing to the wealthy).
Because it's goddamn evil.
Requiring drug tests in order to receive welfare is also based on prejudice against the poor, but at least it's only stupidly counterproductive and merely an act of typical corruption on the part of the firms the administer the drug tests. Threatening a child with hunger for underachieving and having parents who can't or won't get involved in their kid's education is actually evil.
Hmm, Ok, I can follow you with the feedback loop idea... I'm reading it as essentially, hunger=less productivity. This makes sense to me, and I can totally agree with you on this.
When you start on about the drug testing things, though, you totally lose me. How is this oppression against "the poor"? This seems more of "oppressing" drug addicts more than anything. Although I can rationalise that being poor could technically arise simply due to poor market conidtions (i.e. my parents live in dirt-poverty and debt literally because my father worked in a industry that collapsed with the housing market), which are totally uncontrollable by the individual, drug use is wholly voluntary.
I don't know, this just doesn't seem rationalisable to me. I don't want to pay more of my own meager wages in taxes to help "rehabilitate" some crackhead, when I've got my own family to provide care for.
Having to pee in front of a stranger and being regarded with suspicion is oppression.
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 07, 2013, 08:49:57 PM
By making drug testing mandatory for aid, you are going to automatically going to ensure a certain percentage will never apply due to the stigma.
The majority will test clean (As the majority of the population is) and those who do not will 1- Get no aid 2-Now much more likely to enter the prison system.
Cost saved is negligible to the expense. The only possible winners are contractors and administrators.
The problem is covered in perfectly here:
QuoteI don't know, this just doesn't seem rationalisable to me. I don't want to pay more of my own meager wages in taxes to help "rehabilitate" some crackhead, when I've got my own family to provide care for.
In one swoop, everyone involved in benefits claims is now a crackhead needing rehab. That's exactly the kind of stigma we need right now isn't it?
Actually more money is spent on drug tests than is saved, considerably more. At least in Florida which is the only state that we have solid data on so far.
Agreed, and it's universal in testing programs of this ilk.
Hence:
QuoteCost saved is negligible to the expense. The only possible winners are contractors and administrators.
Quote from: Pergamos on April 07, 2013, 09:21:11 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 07, 2013, 08:49:57 PM
By making drug testing mandatory for aid, you are going to automatically going to ensure a certain percentage will never apply due to the stigma.
The majority will test clean (As the majority of the population is) and those who do not will 1- Get no aid 2-Now much more likely to enter the prison system.
Cost saved is negligible to the expense. The only possible winners are contractors and administrators.
The problem is covered in perfectly here:
QuoteI don't know, this just doesn't seem rationalisable to me. I don't want to pay more of my own meager wages in taxes to help "rehabilitate" some crackhead, when I've got my own family to provide care for.
In one swoop, everyone involved in benefits claims is now a crackhead needing rehab. That's exactly the kind of stigma we need right now isn't it?
Actually more money is spent on drug tests than is saved, considerably more. At least in Florida which is the only state that we have solid data on so far.
In this case, I'll be reneging my statement concerning not wishing to spend my meager earnings on "crackheads" and turn that directly into "I don't want to spend on anyone but myself".
So you want any cash paid in tax to be used to directly enhance your life?
I hope you're damn fucking certain that you pay more in than you take out. I mean everything here, Roads, schools, everything.
Clue - When you are making similar statements to tax-evading wankers there's probably something you've missed.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 09:37:27 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on April 07, 2013, 09:21:11 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 07, 2013, 08:49:57 PM
By making drug testing mandatory for aid, you are going to automatically going to ensure a certain percentage will never apply due to the stigma.
The majority will test clean (As the majority of the population is) and those who do not will 1- Get no aid 2-Now much more likely to enter the prison system.
Cost saved is negligible to the expense. The only possible winners are contractors and administrators.
The problem is covered in perfectly here:
QuoteI don't know, this just doesn't seem rationalisable to me. I don't want to pay more of my own meager wages in taxes to help "rehabilitate" some crackhead, when I've got my own family to provide care for.
In one swoop, everyone involved in benefits claims is now a crackhead needing rehab. That's exactly the kind of stigma we need right now isn't it?
Actually more money is spent on drug tests than is saved, considerably more. At least in Florida which is the only state that we have solid data on so far.
In this case, I'll be reneging my statement concerning not wishing to spend my meager earnings on "crackheads" and turn that directly into "I don't want to spend on anyone but myself".
Who is John Galt? Am I right, comrade?
(http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID1449/images/TaxProtest2009.jpg)
Less taxes, smaller government! This is 'Murrica!
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 07, 2013, 09:55:05 PM
So you want any cash paid in tax to be used to directly enhance your life?
I hope you're damn fucking certain that you pay more in than you take out. I mean everything here, Roads, schools, everything.
Clue - When you are making similar statements to tax-evading wankers there's probably something you've missed.
Ok, mabey I did make my statement a bit broad. I'll concede that we need roads...
I guess I'm just frustrated at seeing my cash:hours worked ratio DROP as I work longer hours due to taxation. It just kinda frustrates me. I guess I rationalise my hatred for welfare systems on the false assumption that "killing the worthless poor" would make my paycheck bigger.
I'll still hold true to the fact that, as it stands, I don't really benefit from government.
I pay for my water and electricity, I drive to work on roads funded by the corporation I work for, at 9.50/hr, I'm "too rich" to take advantage of any of my government's social welfare systems, I don't have kids, so I don't really concern myself with the school system, and I CC, so when it comes down to it, it's not the police protecting me from crime... in short, I don't really see anything but a few under-maintained in-town roads as being something I fund with taxes that I get a return on.
I'll concede, though, that welfare isn't my problem. Perhaps military spending, police spending or corrections spending should be cut as a "less evil" way to make my paycheck bigger...
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 10:15:57 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 07, 2013, 09:55:05 PM
So you want any cash paid in tax to be used to directly enhance your life?
I hope you're damn fucking certain that you pay more in than you take out. I mean everything here, Roads, schools, everything.
Clue - When you are making similar statements to tax-evading wankers there's probably something you've missed.
Ok, mabey I did make my statement a bit broad. I'll concede that we need roads...
I guess I'm just frustrated at seeing my cash:hours worked ratio DROP as I work longer hours due to taxation. It just kinda frustrates me. I guess I rationalise my hatred for welfare systems on the false assumption that "killing the worthless poor" would make my paycheck bigger.
I'll still hold true to the fact that, as it stands, I don't really benefit from government.
I pay for my water and electricity, I drive to work on roads funded by the corporation I work for, at 9.50/hr, I'm "too rich" to take advantage of any of my government's social welfare systems, I don't have kids, so I don't really concern myself with the school system, and I CC, so when it comes down to it, it's not the police protecting me from crime... in short, I don't really see anything but a few under-maintained in-town roads as being something I fund with taxes that I get a return on.
I'll concede, though, that welfare isn't my problem. Perhaps military spending, police spending or corrections spending should be cut as a "less evil" way to make my paycheck bigger...
I'm going to take a deep breath and roll something before replying here. One question, I assume you are fairly young? This answer may moderate ire.
WAAH, CRACKHEADS SLEEP IN THE GUTTERS I PAY FOR.
/
:crybaby:
'S funny, Corporations stealing billions of dollars from us every year frustrates me. Those same corporations supporting legislation that furthers their own interests and degrades human beings further frustrates me. But maybe if we make poor kids hungrier they'll finally pull them self out of those gutters.
An impetus for productivity, as though they didn't steal jobs from us as well, as though there were alternatives raining from the sky like mana from heaven.
Excuse me while I puke.
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 07, 2013, 10:19:46 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 10:15:57 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 07, 2013, 09:55:05 PM
So you want any cash paid in tax to be used to directly enhance your life?
I hope you're damn fucking certain that you pay more in than you take out. I mean everything here, Roads, schools, everything.
Clue - When you are making similar statements to tax-evading wankers there's probably something you've missed.
Ok, mabey I did make my statement a bit broad. I'll concede that we need roads...
I guess I'm just frustrated at seeing my cash:hours worked ratio DROP as I work longer hours due to taxation. It just kinda frustrates me. I guess I rationalise my hatred for welfare systems on the false assumption that "killing the worthless poor" would make my paycheck bigger.
I'll still hold true to the fact that, as it stands, I don't really benefit from government.
I pay for my water and electricity, I drive to work on roads funded by the corporation I work for, at 9.50/hr, I'm "too rich" to take advantage of any of my government's social welfare systems, I don't have kids, so I don't really concern myself with the school system, and I CC, so when it comes down to it, it's not the police protecting me from crime... in short, I don't really see anything but a few under-maintained in-town roads as being something I fund with taxes that I get a return on.
I'll concede, though, that welfare isn't my problem. Perhaps military spending, police spending or corrections spending should be cut as a "less evil" way to make my paycheck bigger...
I'm going to take a deep breath and roll something before replying here. One question, I assume you are fairly young? This answer may moderate ire.
you could say I'm fairly young...21...
Btw, thanks for arguing with me on this everyone. I love coming here to get my views shaken on shit...you guys are actually doing a good job at putting things into my mind to let me ruminate on...it's good to hear things that isn't the same "DIRTY JEW LIBRULS" I usually get on my more...typical...hangouts
A child. Fine. That explains a lot.
Quote from: Alty on April 07, 2013, 10:20:05 PM
WAAH, CRACKHEADS SLEEP IN THE GUTTERS I PAY FOR.
/
:crybaby:
'S funny, Corporations stealing billions of dollars from us every year frustrates me. Those same corporations supporting legislation that furthers their own interests and degrades human beings further frustrates me. But maybe if we make poor kids hungrier they'll finally pull them self out of those gutters.
An impetus for productivity, as though they didn't steal jobs from us as well, as though there were alternatives raining from the sky like mana from heaven.
Excuse me while I puke.
WAAAH, TEH CORPORASHUNS BE STEALIN' MAH SUCCESSESS!
/
:crybaby:
I have a feeling we're literally deadlocked in an argument that amounts to stopping an unstoppable force with an immovable object.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 10:27:15 PM
Quote from: Alty on April 07, 2013, 10:20:05 PM
WAAH, CRACKHEADS SLEEP IN THE GUTTERS I PAY FOR.
/
:crybaby:
'S funny, Corporations stealing billions of dollars from us every year frustrates me. Those same corporations supporting legislation that furthers their own interests and degrades human beings further frustrates me. But maybe if we make poor kids hungrier they'll finally pull them self out of those gutters.
An impetus for productivity, as though they didn't steal jobs from us as well, as though there were alternatives raining from the sky like mana from heaven.
Excuse me while I puke.
WAAAH, TEH CORPORASHUNS BE STEALIN' MAH SUCCESSESS!
/
:crybaby:
I have a feeling we're literally deadlocked in an argument that amounts to stopping an unstoppable force with an immovable object.
Um, yeah, except for the part where I'm referring to actual ethics and legal violations that corporations have been PROVED to have committed, while you are referring to the individuals who receive the bill.
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 07, 2013, 10:25:25 PM
A child. Fine. That explains a lot.
Are we going to move beyond this, or can I have an equally valid point to make in saying:
"A statist. Fine. That explains a lot."
Why are Libertarians?
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 10:31:16 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 07, 2013, 10:25:25 PM
A child. Fine. That explains a lot.
Are we going to move beyond this, or can I have an equally valid point to make in saying:
"A statist. Fine. That explains a lot."
Ooh!
I'm enjoying this discussion very much.
:lol:
Quote from: Alty on April 07, 2013, 10:31:05 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 10:27:15 PM
Quote from: Alty on April 07, 2013, 10:20:05 PM
WAAH, CRACKHEADS SLEEP IN THE GUTTERS I PAY FOR.
/
:crybaby:
'S funny, Corporations stealing billions of dollars from us every year frustrates me. Those same corporations supporting legislation that furthers their own interests and degrades human beings further frustrates me. But maybe if we make poor kids hungrier they'll finally pull them self out of those gutters.
An impetus for productivity, as though they didn't steal jobs from us as well, as though there were alternatives raining from the sky like mana from heaven.
Excuse me while I puke.
WAAAH, TEH CORPORASHUNS BE STEALIN' MAH SUCCESSESS!
/
:crybaby:
I have a feeling we're literally deadlocked in an argument that amounts to stopping an unstoppable force with an immovable object.
Um, yeah, except for the part where I'm referring to actual ethics and legal violations that corporations have been PROVED to have committed, while you are referring to the individuals who receive the bill.
By any measure of things, I could just as well twist around the fact that extracting that bill violates "actual ethics" in that it is theft.
Don't get me wrong, I hate corporate assholes too, but principally because barriers to entry make it such that I cannot compete with them...
Here's another way to look at it Von Switracht.
Would you prefer that the people around you be hungry enough to potentially steal your food, uneducated enough that they don't have options aside from stealing your food, and unhealthy enough to give you diseases? Or is it worth spending some of your income on taxes to address these problems?
Anyway, now that I've riled up some ire against me, who wants to pay my rent and buy me groceries when I inevitably piss off my boss and get fired?
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 10:34:40 PM
Quote from: Alty on April 07, 2013, 10:31:05 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 10:27:15 PM
Quote from: Alty on April 07, 2013, 10:20:05 PM
WAAH, CRACKHEADS SLEEP IN THE GUTTERS I PAY FOR.
/
:crybaby:
'S funny, Corporations stealing billions of dollars from us every year frustrates me. Those same corporations supporting legislation that furthers their own interests and degrades human beings further frustrates me. But maybe if we make poor kids hungrier they'll finally pull them self out of those gutters.
An impetus for productivity, as though they didn't steal jobs from us as well, as though there were alternatives raining from the sky like mana from heaven.
Excuse me while I puke.
WAAAH, TEH CORPORASHUNS BE STEALIN' MAH SUCCESSESS!
/
:crybaby:
I have a feeling we're literally deadlocked in an argument that amounts to stopping an unstoppable force with an immovable object.
Um, yeah, except for the part where I'm referring to actual ethics and legal violations that corporations have been PROVED to have committed, while you are referring to the individuals who receive the bill.
By any measure of things, I could just as well twist around the fact that extracting that bill violates "actual ethics" in that it is theft.
Don't get me wrong, I hate corporate assholes too, but principally because barriers to entry make it such that I cannot compete with them...
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
QuoteI guess I'm just frustrated at seeing my cash:hours worked ratio DROP as I work longer hours due to taxation. It just kinda frustrates me. I guess I rationalise my hatred for welfare systems on the false assumption that "killing the worthless poor" would make my paycheck bigger.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html
QuoteThe Fed didn't tell anyone which banks were in trouble so deep they required a combined $1.2 trillion on Dec. 5, 2008, their single neediest day. Bankers didn't mention that they took tens of billions of dollars in emergency loans at the same time they were assuring investors their firms were healthy. And no one calculated until now that banks reaped an estimated $13 billion of income by taking advantage of the Fed's below-market rates, Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its January issue.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/secret-and-lies-of-the-bailout-20130104?page=2
QuoteToday, excess reserves at the Fed total an astonishing $1.4 trillion."The money is just doing nothing," says Nomi Prins, a former Goldman executive who has spent years monitoring the distribution of bailout money.
Nothing, that is, except earning a few crumbs of risk-free interest for the banks. Prins estimates that the annual haul in interest on Fed reserves is about $3.6 billion – a relatively tiny subsidy in the scheme of things, but one that, ironically, just about matches the total amount of bailout money spent on aid to homeowners. Put another way, banks are getting paid about as much every year for not lending money as 1 million Americans received for mortgage modifications and other housing aid in the whole of the past four years.
QuoteBanks could apply to the Fed and other regulators for waivers, which were often approved (one senior FDIC official tells me he recommended denying "golden parachute" payments to Citigroup officials, only to see them approved by superiors). They could get bailouts through programs other than TARP that did not place limits on bonuses. Or they could simply pay bonuses not prohibited under TARP. In one of the worst episodes, the notorious lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac paid out more than $200 million in bonuses between 2008 and 2010, even though the firms (a) lost more than $100 billion in 2008 alone, and (b) required nearly $400 billion in federal assistance during the bailout period.
Even worse was the incredible episode in which bailout recipient AIG paid more than $1 million each to 73 employees of AIG Financial Products, the tiny unit widely blamed for having destroyed the insurance giant (and perhaps even triggered the whole crisis) with its reckless issuance of nearly half a trillion dollars in toxic credit-default swaps. The "retention bonuses," paid after the bailout, went to 11 employees who no longer worked for AIG.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-real-housewives-of-wall-street-look-whos-cashing-in-on-the-bailout-20110411
QuoteBut if you want to get a true sense of what the "shadow budget" is all about, all you have to do is look closely at the taxpayer money handed over to a single company that goes by a seemingly innocuous name: Waterfall TALF Opportunity. At first glance, Waterfall's haul doesn't seem all that huge — just nine loans totaling some $220 million, made through a Fed bailout program. That doesn't seem like a whole lot, considering that Goldman Sachs alone received roughly $800 billion in loans from the Fed. But upon closer inspection, Waterfall TALF Opportunity boasts a couple of interesting names among its chief investors: Christy Mack and Susan Karches.
Christy is the wife of John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley. Susan is the widow of Peter Karches, a close friend of the Macks who served as president of Morgan Stanley's investment-banking division. Neither woman appears to have any serious history in business, apart from a few philanthropic experiences. Yet the Federal Reserve handed them both low-interest loans of nearly a quarter of a billion dollars through a complicated bailout program that virtually guaranteed them millions in risk-free income.
I just can't stop laughing. I'm sitting in my car after grabbing bananas at the store and I can't go anywhere because I CANT STOP LAUGHING.
Quote from: Pergamos on April 07, 2013, 10:36:36 PM
Here's another way to look at it Von Switracht.
Would you prefer that the people around you be hungry enough to potentially steal your food, uneducated enough that they don't have options aside from stealing your food, and unhealthy enough to give you diseases? Or is it worth spending some of your income on taxes to address these problems?
This is good...I actually like this.
However, I will challenge it: if solving this problem means giving them food/health/etc anyway, what benefit does it provide over defending my stash of these things?
I see it as either I have the minor inconvenience of alleviating these people's ails, or the minor inconvenience of defending my property/white flighting my ass away from those who'd steal from me.
Seriously, though. I think your point will stick with me through the week and may even change my outlook on things if I consiter it long enough...Verily, I gave my rebut to your opinion only to further the topic and because as a human, I must maintain the appearance of being undeterred...
Still, I like this point, and It's something I will debate with myself through the week...thanks man!
Quote from: Alty on April 07, 2013, 10:42:43 PM
I just can't stop laughing. I'm sitting in my car after grabbing bananas at the store and I can't go anywhere because I CANT STOP LAUGHING.
Heh, and posting the above has bought out the bots in force. Again. Hello dear readers. Yes I'm keeping tabs on you keeping tabs on me keeping tabs on you. It's all very meta, isn't it?
Quote from: Cain on April 07, 2013, 10:38:59 PM
QuoteI guess I'm just frustrated at seeing my cash:hours worked ratio DROP as I work longer hours due to taxation. It just kinda frustrates me. I guess I rationalise my hatred for welfare systems on the false assumption that "killing the worthless poor" would make my paycheck bigger.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html
QuoteThe Fed didn't tell anyone which banks were in trouble so deep they required a combined $1.2 trillion on Dec. 5, 2008, their single neediest day. Bankers didn't mention that they took tens of billions of dollars in emergency loans at the same time they were assuring investors their firms were healthy. And no one calculated until now that banks reaped an estimated $13 billion of income by taking advantage of the Fed's below-market rates, Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its January issue.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/secret-and-lies-of-the-bailout-20130104?page=2
QuoteToday, excess reserves at the Fed total an astonishing $1.4 trillion."The money is just doing nothing," says Nomi Prins, a former Goldman executive who has spent years monitoring the distribution of bailout money.
Nothing, that is, except earning a few crumbs of risk-free interest for the banks. Prins estimates that the annual haul in interest on Fed reserves is about $3.6 billion – a relatively tiny subsidy in the scheme of things, but one that, ironically, just about matches the total amount of bailout money spent on aid to homeowners. Put another way, banks are getting paid about as much every year for not lending money as 1 million Americans received for mortgage modifications and other housing aid in the whole of the past four years.
QuoteBanks could apply to the Fed and other regulators for waivers, which were often approved (one senior FDIC official tells me he recommended denying "golden parachute" payments to Citigroup officials, only to see them approved by superiors). They could get bailouts through programs other than TARP that did not place limits on bonuses. Or they could simply pay bonuses not prohibited under TARP. In one of the worst episodes, the notorious lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac paid out more than $200 million in bonuses between 2008 and 2010, even though the firms (a) lost more than $100 billion in 2008 alone, and (b) required nearly $400 billion in federal assistance during the bailout period.
Even worse was the incredible episode in which bailout recipient AIG paid more than $1 million each to 73 employees of AIG Financial Products, the tiny unit widely blamed for having destroyed the insurance giant (and perhaps even triggered the whole crisis) with its reckless issuance of nearly half a trillion dollars in toxic credit-default swaps. The "retention bonuses," paid after the bailout, went to 11 employees who no longer worked for AIG.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-real-housewives-of-wall-street-look-whos-cashing-in-on-the-bailout-20110411
QuoteBut if you want to get a true sense of what the "shadow budget" is all about, all you have to do is look closely at the taxpayer money handed over to a single company that goes by a seemingly innocuous name: Waterfall TALF Opportunity. At first glance, Waterfall's haul doesn't seem all that huge — just nine loans totaling some $220 million, made through a Fed bailout program. That doesn't seem like a whole lot, considering that Goldman Sachs alone received roughly $800 billion in loans from the Fed. But upon closer inspection, Waterfall TALF Opportunity boasts a couple of interesting names among its chief investors: Christy Mack and Susan Karches.
Christy is the wife of John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley. Susan is the widow of Peter Karches, a close friend of the Macks who served as president of Morgan Stanley's investment-banking division. Neither woman appears to have any serious history in business, apart from a few philanthropic experiences. Yet the Federal Reserve handed them both low-interest loans of nearly a quarter of a billion dollars through a complicated bailout program that virtually guaranteed them millions in risk-free income.
My opinions:
Status: SOLD
Bidder: Cain
QuoteOk, mabey I did make my statement a bit broad. I'll concede that we need roads...
Where you're going, you won't need roads
I guess I'm just frustrated at seeing my cash:hours worked ratio DROP as I work longer hours due to taxation. It just kinda frustrates me.
Son, welcome to a recession. This is the first one you've worked through. It's shitty and they come around quite frequently. All part of the boom/bust economy built on house prices.Get used to it. It sucks.
I guess I rationalise my hatred for welfare systems on the false assumption that "killing the worthless poor" would make my paycheck bigger.
This is where you can begin to fuck off. Read that sentance few times and think about what this says about you as a person and for you reasoning abilities. The fact you deem someone as "worthless" due to needing aid. Fuck man. Really?
I'll still hold true to the fact that, as it stands, I don't really benefit from government.
What you mean is you feel you do not currently benefit. They've sunk a lot of cost into you in many ways, including education
I pay for my water and electricity,
As do those "worthless poor
I drive to work on roads funded by the corporation I work for,
Selective argument. Do you exclusively use roads funded by your corporation? No? Null and void. Next.
at 9.50/hr, I'm "too rich" to take advantage of any of my government's social welfare systems,
Boo hoo. Same here. I just wish I could earn less money to be better off you know? Or maybe the fact that you're struggling on this level should give you some FUCKING EMPATHY for those below it. They way forward is not to fuck everyone in a more vulnerable position that you.
I don't have kids, so I don't really concern myself with the school system,
Did you go through it? Do you foresee children within your lifetime? Yes to either means you should think about this shit. The kids going through that system now are not a lot younger than you. Need a primer on how shitty children become shitty adults? Look at schools.
and I CC, so when it comes down to it, it's not the police protecting me from crime...
Yeah, all the police do is mop up after the fact. They don't help society at large. The ME-ISM is starting to grate now.
in short, I don't really see anything but a few under-maintained in-town roads as being something I fund with taxes that I get a return on.
You're a fucking "libertarian" aren't you?
I'll concede, though, that welfare isn't my problem. Perhaps military spending, police spending or corrections spending should be cut as a "less evil" way to make my paycheck bigger...
Look, Welfare IS a problem. However it's A problem. Just like all the other things are problems. I guaranfuckingtee you that the best way out of a problem is not vilifying the fuck out of group of people until everyone just blames them. If you need a history lesson on why that's a bad thing then I can agree that your education was essentially free and worthless. At the end of it, you're young. You need to read a shitload more, shut the fuck up more and seriously fucking think about what the fuck you are saying. Some of that up there is pretty fucking abhorrent.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 10:45:30 PM
My opinions:
Status: SOLD
Bidder: Cain
Please start here (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,20156.0.html).
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 10:31:16 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 07, 2013, 10:25:25 PM
A child. Fine. That explains a lot.
Are we going to move beyond this, or can I have an equally valid point to make in saying:
"A statist. Fine. That explains a lot."
And by the by kid, read a couple of my posts before trying to give me a label.I'd hardly call myself a statist but at 21 and with this level of insight, you are a fucking child.
Edit for idiot typo.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 10:42:58 PM
I see it as either I have the minor inconvenience of alleviating these people's ails, or the minor inconvenience of defending my property/white flighting my ass away from those who'd steal from me.
(https://gs1.wac.edgecastcdn.net/8019B6/data.tumblr.com/317cb4fb0b962e56fb084bde2ccd1aad/tumblr_mkvd0yPUVL1qd77wwo2_1280.jpg)
edited because this monkey encapsulates my feelings perfectly.
Like, you know what "white flight" is, don't you?
Well I only know about this version:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight
Which fits perfectly with what I'm seeing here.
Yeah, that's it.
I mean, it's not like a lot of classism doesn't depend on racism, right?
Or the "poor people are degenerate crackheads" thing doesn't have a lot to do with the fact that PoC are seen as degenerate and inherently more criminal.
Or that white wealth on the scale it is on has anything to do with racism.
Entitlement has a good racist pedigree too, and this thread is dripping in it.
Yeah, it does. Because helping other human beings scrape by is a minor inconvenience, right? Instead of a criteria for being a semi-decent human being.
Oh, hah, you guise, I'm sure there's no way this guy is in fact a typical white male, early 20's who just shat his britches after downing Atlas Shrugged and is riding high in a wave of unknown entitlement.
That would just be, well, the kind of trite cliche that doesn't happen in real life. Right?
Quote from: Alty on April 07, 2013, 11:06:32 PM
Oh, hah, you guise, I'm sure there's no way this guy is in fact a typical white male, early 20's who just shat his britches after downing Atlas Shrugged and is riding high in a wave of unknown entitlement.
That would just be, well, the kind of trite cliche that doesn't happen in real life. Right?
And now I can't stop laughing.
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 07, 2013, 11:05:52 PM
Yeah, it does. Because helping other human beings scrape by is a minor inconvenience, right? Instead of a criteria for being a semi-decent human being.
The helping hand is CRUSHED UNDER THE MARCH OF PROGRESS CITIZEN.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 10:42:58 PM
I have the minor inconvenience of alleviating these people's ails, or the minor inconvenience of defending my property
(http://i.imgur.com/xCi72v4.jpg?1)
Quote from: Alty on April 07, 2013, 11:06:32 PM
Oh, hah, you guise, I'm sure there's no way this guy is in fact a typical white male, early 20's who just shat his britches after downing Atlas Shrugged and is riding high in a wave of unknown entitlement.
That would just be, well, the kind of trite cliche that doesn't happen in real life. Right?
Your definition of "entitlement" is confusing to me. In the places in which I see the term usually, entitlement is used as a term against those who believe that the state should provide welfare under the assumption that every human being is "entitled" to resources.
Also, haven't read Ayn Rand since highschool...and to be honest, back then I was the dirty pot smoking hippy who would have probably been poking fun of current me for being such a harsh and evil man -- if anything, at that stage, I saw Rand's works as being anti-authoritarian rather than being related to free market capitalism...mainly because I was stupid at the time. No, it wasn't Ayn Rand who turned me to my current beliefs about the world...it was living life under the boot of government welfare, poverty, and all of its short comings and abuses that motivated me to strive to be better than not only my neighbours, but my prior self as well.
In other words, I was once one of those "degenerate poor" that I may come off as railing against. Being such a pathetic thing made me hate myself. That hate towards my situation motivated me to strive to be better than myself.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 11:17:50 PM
Quote from: Alty on April 07, 2013, 11:06:32 PM
Oh, hah, you guise, I'm sure there's no way this guy is in fact a typical white male, early 20's who just shat his britches after downing Atlas Shrugged and is riding high in a wave of unknown entitlement.
That would just be, well, the kind of trite cliche that doesn't happen in real life. Right?
Your definition of "entitlement" is confusing to me. In the places in which I see the term usually, entitlement is used as a term against those who believe that the state should provide welfare under the assumption that every human being is "entitled" to resources.
Also, haven't read Ayn Rand since highschool...and to be honest, back then I was the dirty pot smoking hippy who would have probably been poking fun of current me for being such a harsh and evil man -- if anything, at that stage, I saw Rand's works as being anti-authoritarian rather than being related to free market capitalism...mainly because I was stupid at the time. No, it wasn't Ayn Rand who turned me to my current beliefs about the world...it was living life under the boot of government welfare, poverty, and all of its short comings and abuses that motivated me to strive to be better than not only my neighbours, but my prior self as well.
In other words, I was once one of those "degenerate poor" that I may come off as railing against. Being such a pathetic thing made me hate myself. That hate towards my situation motivated me to strive to be better than myself.
I am the same way about newagers.
But you have to understand that you're missing a huge chunk of the pie here. There's a large element to this equation that you're just not seeing.
Your hate does not invalidate the need for a society to.provide some kind of safety net. The net, and those who take advantage of it, are not causing the problem.
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 07, 2013, 10:47:39 PM
QuoteOk, mabey I did make my statement a bit broad. I'll concede that we need roads...
Where you're going, you won't need roads
I guess I'm just frustrated at seeing my cash:hours worked ratio DROP as I work longer hours due to taxation. It just kinda frustrates me.
Son, welcome to a recession. This is the first one you've worked through. It's shitty and they come around quite frequently. All part of the boom/bust economy built on house prices.Get used to it. It sucks.
I guess I rationalise my hatred for welfare systems on the false assumption that "killing the worthless poor" would make my paycheck bigger.
This is where you can begin to fuck off. Read that sentance few times and think about what this says about you as a person and for you reasoning abilities. The fact you deem someone as "worthless" due to needing aid. Fuck man. Really?
I'll still hold true to the fact that, as it stands, I don't really benefit from government.
What you mean is you feel you do not currently benefit. They've sunk a lot of cost into you in many ways, including education
I pay for my water and electricity,
As do those "worthless poor
I drive to work on roads funded by the corporation I work for,
Selective argument. Do you exclusively use roads funded by your corporation? No? Null and void. Next.
at 9.50/hr, I'm "too rich" to take advantage of any of my government's social welfare systems,
Boo hoo. Same here. I just wish I could earn less money to be better off you know? Or maybe the fact that you're struggling on this level should give you some FUCKING EMPATHY for those below it. They way forward is not to fuck everyone in a more vulnerable position that you.
I don't have kids, so I don't really concern myself with the school system,
Did you go through it? Do you foresee children within your lifetime? Yes to either means you should think about this shit. The kids going through that system now are not a lot younger than you. Need a primer on how shitty children become shitty adults? Look at schools.
and I CC, so when it comes down to it, it's not the police protecting me from crime...
Yeah, all the police do is mop up after the fact. They don't help society at large. The ME-ISM is starting to grate now.
in short, I don't really see anything but a few under-maintained in-town roads as being something I fund with taxes that I get a return on.
You're a fucking "libertarian" aren't you?
I'll concede, though, that welfare isn't my problem. Perhaps military spending, police spending or corrections spending should be cut as a "less evil" way to make my paycheck bigger...
Look, Welfare IS a problem. However it's A problem. Just like all the other things are problems. I guaranfuckingtee you that the best way out of a problem is not vilifying the fuck out of group of people until everyone just blames them. If you need a history lesson on why that's a bad thing then I can agree that your education was essentially free and worthless.
At the end of it, you're young. You need to read a shitload more, shut the fuck up more and seriously fucking think about what the fuck you are saying. Some of that up there is pretty fucking abhorrent.
You either missed this or ignored it.
And what you have just argued for is the removal of something that kept you alive. Words fail me.
Yeah, that's a good point.
You just argued that the safety net allowed you to get yourself to a better place. Where would have been without it?
Quote from: Alty on April 07, 2013, 11:22:06 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 11:17:50 PM
Quote from: Alty on April 07, 2013, 11:06:32 PM
Oh, hah, you guise, I'm sure there's no way this guy is in fact a typical white male, early 20's who just shat his britches after downing Atlas Shrugged and is riding high in a wave of unknown entitlement.
That would just be, well, the kind of trite cliche that doesn't happen in real life. Right?
Your definition of "entitlement" is confusing to me. In the places in which I see the term usually, entitlement is used as a term against those who believe that the state should provide welfare under the assumption that every human being is "entitled" to resources.
Also, haven't read Ayn Rand since highschool...and to be honest, back then I was the dirty pot smoking hippy who would have probably been poking fun of current me for being such a harsh and evil man -- if anything, at that stage, I saw Rand's works as being anti-authoritarian rather than being related to free market capitalism...mainly because I was stupid at the time. No, it wasn't Ayn Rand who turned me to my current beliefs about the world...it was living life under the boot of government welfare, poverty, and all of its short comings and abuses that motivated me to strive to be better than not only my neighbours, but my prior self as well.
In other words, I was once one of those "degenerate poor" that I may come off as railing against. Being such a pathetic thing made me hate myself. That hate towards my situation motivated me to strive to be better than myself.
I am the same way about newagers.
But you have to understand that you're missing a huge chunk of the pie here. There's a large element to this equation that you're just not seeing.
Your hate does not invalidate the need for a society to.provide some kind of safety net. The net, and those who take advantage of it, are not causing the problem.
Right, and by this point in the thread, I've already accepted that. I was "sold" on cain's post because I read it as pretty much laying out that dirty dealings were more of an issue than welfare.
And also it amuses me that you're mad at poor people instead of the corporations that are responsible for the fact that you're only making $9.50 an hour.
What you should be doing instead of being racist and classist is going after the entities responsible for the situation.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 11:26:11 PM
Quote from: Alty on April 07, 2013, 11:22:06 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 11:17:50 PM
Quote from: Alty on April 07, 2013, 11:06:32 PM
Oh, hah, you guise, I'm sure there's no way this guy is in fact a typical white male, early 20's who just shat his britches after downing Atlas Shrugged and is riding high in a wave of unknown entitlement.
That would just be, well, the kind of trite cliche that doesn't happen in real life. Right?
Your definition of "entitlement" is confusing to me. In the places in which I see the term usually, entitlement is used as a term against those who believe that the state should provide welfare under the assumption that every human being is "entitled" to resources.
Also, haven't read Ayn Rand since highschool...and to be honest, back then I was the dirty pot smoking hippy who would have probably been poking fun of current me for being such a harsh and evil man -- if anything, at that stage, I saw Rand's works as being anti-authoritarian rather than being related to free market capitalism...mainly because I was stupid at the time. No, it wasn't Ayn Rand who turned me to my current beliefs about the world...it was living life under the boot of government welfare, poverty, and all of its short comings and abuses that motivated me to strive to be better than not only my neighbours, but my prior self as well.
In other words, I was once one of those "degenerate poor" that I may come off as railing against. Being such a pathetic thing made me hate myself. That hate towards my situation motivated me to strive to be better than myself.
I am the same way about newagers.
But you have to understand that you're missing a huge chunk of the pie here. There's a large element to this equation that you're just not seeing.
Your hate does not invalidate the need for a society to.provide some kind of safety net. The net, and those who take advantage of it, are not causing the problem.
Right, and by this point in the thread, I've already accepted that. I was "sold" on cain's post because I read it as pretty much laying out that dirty dealings were more of an issue than welfare.
Well, alrighty, then.
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 07, 2013, 11:26:50 PM
And also it amuses me that you're mad at poor people instead of the corporations that are responsible for the fact that you're only making $9.50 an hour.
What you should be doing instead of being racist and classist is going after the entities responsible for the situation.
Jeezus dude, that's going a bit far don't you think? I mean, sure, rib the kid for being young or whatever but calling him a racist is a bit much I think.
Quote from: Alty on April 07, 2013, 11:25:53 PM
Yeah, that's a good point.
You just argued that the safety net allowed you to get yourself to a better place. Where would have been without it?
[joke]I would have been a free market capitalist making a living as the executive of a local-scale marijuana sales firms[/joke]
In all seriousness, my old opinion is breaking down.
This is good too. Again, I come here mainly because this forum holds opinions that are so contrary to what I usually hold as valid. Thanks again, PD, for making me look retarded, such that I may further my understanding of political discourses!
But the problem isn't welfare, it's that we don't have good policies in place that canhelp work a person out of welfare and into some kind of more comfortable situation. Basic human pride says a person is going to want to be the best they can be, unless they've completely given up hope. Which certainly is an issue with those in generational poverty. It shouldn't be tied to getting benefits, but there should be more programs to help those on welfare get the experience they need to move up the ladder in the workforce,
Quote from: Six Feet of Sole on April 07, 2013, 11:29:31 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 07, 2013, 11:26:50 PM
And also it amuses me that you're mad at poor people instead of the corporations that are responsible for the fact that you're only making $9.50 an hour.
What you should be doing instead of being racist and classist is going after the entities responsible for the situation.
Jeezus dude, that's going a bit far don't you think? I mean, sure, rib the kid for being young or whatever but calling him a racist is a bit much I think.
If a white person uses the words "white flighting" to describe an action they have or may feel they have to take in order to "defend" their property, there's 169% chance they're a racist, even if they don't, strictly speaking, realize it.
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 07, 2013, 11:26:50 PM
And also it amuses me that you're mad at poor people instead of the corporations that are responsible for the fact that you're only making $9.50 an hour.
What you should be doing instead of being racist and classist is going after the entities responsible for the situation.
Well, call it perhaps me being indoctrinated by right-wing ideologies, (this thread is really making me realise how bad the materials I've been reading in the past 3-5 years have really been), but instead of being angry at a private business, I feel I need to be angry with myself for being only worth 9.50/hr...I use this sort of self-loathing as motivation for taking action to better my self.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 11:30:54 PM
Quote from: Alty on April 07, 2013, 11:25:53 PM
Yeah, that's a good point.
You just argued that the safety net allowed you to get yourself to a better place. Where would have been without it?
[joke]I would have been a free market capitalist making a living as the executive of a local-scale marijuana sales firms[/joke]
In all seriousness, my old opinion is breaking down.
This is good too. Again, I come here mainly because this forum holds opinions that are so contrary to what I usually hold as valid. Thanks again, PD, for making me look retarded, such that I may further my understanding of political discourses!
The point is, if you were half as dependent on the system as you claim, without it you would be dead or in jail.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 11:34:34 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 07, 2013, 11:26:50 PM
And also it amuses me that you're mad at poor people instead of the corporations that are responsible for the fact that you're only making $9.50 an hour.
What you should be doing instead of being racist and classist is going after the entities responsible for the situation.
Well, call it perhaps me being indoctrinated by right-wing ideologies, (this thread is really making me realise how bad the materials I've been reading in the past 3-5 years have really been),
Good.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 11:34:34 PMbut instead of being angry at a private business, I feel I need to be angry with myself for being only worth 9.50/hr...I use this sort of self-loathing as motivation for taking action to better my self.
Bad. Your self loathing doesn't do much but benefit them. and why would you give them that?
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 07, 2013, 11:33:21 PM
Quote from: Six Feet of Sole on April 07, 2013, 11:29:31 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 07, 2013, 11:26:50 PM
And also it amuses me that you're mad at poor people instead of the corporations that are responsible for the fact that you're only making $9.50 an hour.
What you should be doing instead of being racist and classist is going after the entities responsible for the situation.
Jeezus dude, that's going a bit far don't you think? I mean, sure, rib the kid for being young or whatever but calling him a racist is a bit much I think.
If a white person uses the words "white flighting" to describe an action they have or may feel they have to take in order to "defend" their property, there's 169% chance they're a racist, even if they don't, strictly speaking, realize it.
I'll be brutally honest in saying that I was attacked by a group of 7 or so african americans and this resulted in my being injured so bad that I wasn't able to complete college, or even walk for about a year. So, yes, due to some unresolved PTSD, I do hold some subconscious racism.
I'd like to resolve those issues, though...it's hard to find materials related to deconditioning racist tendancies, though, since the whole notion of the "white male racist" is so criminalised...
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 07, 2013, 11:38:18 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 11:34:34 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 07, 2013, 11:26:50 PM
And also it amuses me that you're mad at poor people instead of the corporations that are responsible for the fact that you're only making $9.50 an hour.
What you should be doing instead of being racist and classist is going after the entities responsible for the situation.
Well, call it perhaps me being indoctrinated by right-wing ideologies, (this thread is really making me realise how bad the materials I've been reading in the past 3-5 years have really been),
Good.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 11:34:34 PMbut instead of being angry at a private business, I feel I need to be angry with myself for being only worth 9.50/hr...I use this sort of self-loathing as motivation for taking action to better my self.
Bad. Your self loathing doesn't do much but benefit them. and why would you give them that?
Yeah, self confidence, dignity, the will to persevere despite hardship are all valuable skills best met without self loathing. Especially since.there's little in this life that you actually.own.
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 07, 2013, 11:36:54 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 11:30:54 PM
Quote from: Alty on April 07, 2013, 11:25:53 PM
Yeah, that's a good point.
You just argued that the safety net allowed you to get yourself to a better place. Where would have been without it?
[joke]I would have been a free market capitalist making a living as the executive of a local-scale marijuana sales firms[/joke]
In all seriousness, my old opinion is breaking down.
This is good too. Again, I come here mainly because this forum holds opinions that are so contrary to what I usually hold as valid. Thanks again, PD, for making me look retarded, such that I may further my understanding of political discourses!
The point is, if you were half as dependent on the system as you claim, without it you would be dead or in jail.
Ah, dude, totally got the point. My "joke" was intended to illustrate that idea.
It's causing cognitive dissonance that I used a system I was railing against, therefore, my opinions are breaking, and hopefully this allows me to see past a shit ton of bad literature that has led me into my current outlooks on things...
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 11:39:11 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 07, 2013, 11:33:21 PM
Quote from: Six Feet of Sole on April 07, 2013, 11:29:31 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 07, 2013, 11:26:50 PM
And also it amuses me that you're mad at poor people instead of the corporations that are responsible for the fact that you're only making $9.50 an hour.
What you should be doing instead of being racist and classist is going after the entities responsible for the situation.
Jeezus dude, that's going a bit far don't you think? I mean, sure, rib the kid for being young or whatever but calling him a racist is a bit much I think.
If a white person uses the words "white flighting" to describe an action they have or may feel they have to take in order to "defend" their property, there's 169% chance they're a racist, even if they don't, strictly speaking, realize it.
I'll be brutally honest in saying that I was attacked by a group of 7 or so african americans and this resulted in my being injured so bad that I wasn't able to complete college, or even walk for about a year. So, yes, due to some unresolved PTSD, I do hold some subconscious racism.
I'd like to resolve those issues, though...it's hard to find materials related to deconditioning racist tendancies, though, since the whole notion of the "white male racist" is so criminalised...
What does that even mean?
Also, go read the BIP.
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 07, 2013, 11:38:18 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 11:34:34 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 07, 2013, 11:26:50 PM
And also it amuses me that you're mad at poor people instead of the corporations that are responsible for the fact that you're only making $9.50 an hour.
What you should be doing instead of being racist and classist is going after the entities responsible for the situation.
Well, call it perhaps me being indoctrinated by right-wing ideologies, (this thread is really making me realise how bad the materials I've been reading in the past 3-5 years have really been),
Good.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 11:34:34 PMbut instead of being angry at a private business, I feel I need to be angry with myself for being only worth 9.50/hr...I use this sort of self-loathing as motivation for taking action to better my self.
Bad. Your self loathing doesn't do much but benefit them. and why would you give them that?
Conditioned helplessness and a passive-agressive personality I guess...
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 07, 2013, 11:42:12 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 11:39:11 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 07, 2013, 11:33:21 PM
Quote from: Six Feet of Sole on April 07, 2013, 11:29:31 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 07, 2013, 11:26:50 PM
And also it amuses me that you're mad at poor people instead of the corporations that are responsible for the fact that you're only making $9.50 an hour.
What you should be doing instead of being racist and classist is going after the entities responsible for the situation.
Jeezus dude, that's going a bit far don't you think? I mean, sure, rib the kid for being young or whatever but calling him a racist is a bit much I think.
If a white person uses the words "white flighting" to describe an action they have or may feel they have to take in order to "defend" their property, there's 169% chance they're a racist, even if they don't, strictly speaking, realize it.
I'll be brutally honest in saying that I was attacked by a group of 7 or so african americans and this resulted in my being injured so bad that I wasn't able to complete college, or even walk for about a year. So, yes, due to some unresolved PTSD, I do hold some subconscious racism.
I'd like to resolve those issues, though...it's hard to find materials related to deconditioning racist tendancies, though, since the whole notion of the "white male racist" is so criminalised...
What does that even mean?
Also, go read the BIP.
The BIP isn't helpful to me on the issue...tbh, all I ever take away from the BIP when I read it can be summed up in 2 or 3 pages in the principia; the ones related to psycho-metaphysics....
anyway...
Try googling something like "curing racism" or "racism counseling" or any number of queries that essentially relate to "I'm racist and don't want to be anymore"...90% of your top articles relate to essentially calling white males who hold racist views tiny-dicked hicks or self-loathing bastards. They're also more typically editorials moreso than self help...
Huh...while writing this post, I did note something interesting though...
In the video "how to operate your brain", Tim Leary talks about how "those who control your eyeballs, control your brain"...I interpret this as meaing "the more shit you read/watch, the more shit you think, and thus shit becomes truth."
I've been reading/watching bad shit for some time...perhaps me coming to PD is beneficial in that I'm replacing bad shit, with shit that conflicts with the shit I hold true. Mabey if I linger long enough, I can become reconditioned simply by removing my usual shit from my viewing habits...
Sorry for the tl;dr rant
*shrug* I found the "redecorating your cell" metaphor to be very useful in dealing with my own, myriad issues.
Unlearning problematic behavior/ideas takes time. I found picking apart the programming (who benefits, why do they want me to think this way, etc.) to be useful.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 08:25:02 PM
Quote from: Alty on April 07, 2013, 08:14:53 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 08:13:10 PM
I can understand opposition to the "gay" bill, but what is exactly so wrong with suspending state-aid to people who don't maintain productivity?
Because aid us aid, not incentive to.produce.
You either take care of those who cannot care for themselves or you take care of your political backers
I always rationalised aid programs under the notion that one is providing aid in order to allow a person not to starve to death while they try to become independent, productive individuals. Naturally, for the permanently disabled, this is not the case, but for "poor assistance", isn't "give them a crutch until they're productive" kinda the point?
If it isn't, and this "aid is aid" attitude is how things "should be", then I'm kinda seeing the whole aid system as being kinda full of fail and AIDS in its entirety. This sort of thinking leads to an unfeasible aid system, wherein there is no incentive to contribute productively, and all the incentive in the world to leech from aid...'least that's how I've been seeing it...
Pretty sure the aid is there "so children don't starve". I know that's not very free-market friendly or anything, but I think I have to put "children getting to eat" ahead of some political ideal.
Also, if you're worried about poor people leeching a bit, when assmonkeys in the banking system have opened 3 arteries, then your priorities are fucked up.
I can't believe you guys started in on this while I was stuck cleaning!
New guy, get in on the cookies, I have a feeling this thread is going AWESOME PLACES.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 11:17:50 PM
Your definition of "entitlement" is confusing to me. In the places in which I see the term usually, entitlement is used as a term against those who believe that the state should provide welfare under the assumption that every human being is "entitled" to resources.
And this is the root cause of the miscommunication, here.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 10:42:58 PM
I see it as either I have the minor inconvenience of alleviating these people's ails, or the minor inconvenience of defending my property/white flighting my ass away from those who'd steal from me.
Whoa.
Shades of George Zimmerman.
I'm out.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 01:00:49 AM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 10:42:58 PM
I see it as either I have the minor inconvenience of alleviating these people's ails, or the minor inconvenience of defending my property/white flighting my ass away from those who'd steal from me.
Whoa.
Shades of George Zimmerman.
I'm out.
There's a biped somewhere in there, TGRR. It's just been buried in a fuckton of bad signal.
"It's your fault that you're poor. If you wanted to not be poor, you should have pulled yourself up by your bootstraps and worked harder or gone to college, moron.
No, you may NOT have an affordable education or a job because you'll ruin the economy if you're not poor, dummy.
No, you are NOT entitled to any help because you're poor. Tax dollars are reserved to help out those who MADE something of themselves by not being poor, loser.
WAKE UP AND STOP BEING POOR. Stupid liberal."
See? It's simple. This is all about job-creation and putting people to WORK.
Quote from: Cainad on April 08, 2013, 03:07:15 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 01:00:49 AM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 10:42:58 PM
I see it as either I have the minor inconvenience of alleviating these people's ails, or the minor inconvenience of defending my property/white flighting my ass away from those who'd steal from me.
Whoa.
Shades of George Zimmerman.
I'm out.
There's a biped somewhere in there, TGRR. It's just been buried in a fuckton of bad signal.
Uhhh, Cainad, he said "defending my property/white flighting my ass away from those who'd steal from me."
And he thinks poor people have to be "productive" after a set time on some inadequate aid. I guess people with a fuckton of money are "productive". Like the Kardashians.
Quote from: stelz on April 08, 2013, 04:00:33 AM
Quote from: Cainad on April 08, 2013, 03:07:15 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 01:00:49 AM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 10:42:58 PM
I see it as either I have the minor inconvenience of alleviating these people's ails, or the minor inconvenience of defending my property/white flighting my ass away from those who'd steal from me.
Whoa.
Shades of George Zimmerman.
I'm out.
There's a biped somewhere in there, TGRR. It's just been buried in a fuckton of bad signal.
Uhhh, Cainad, he said "defending my property/white flighting my ass away from those who'd steal from me."
And he thinks poor people have to be "productive" after a set time on some inadequate aid. I guess people with a fuckton of money are "productive". Like the Kardashians.
People ought to be allowed to be dumb.
I agree with Cainad, I think he just doesn't know any better. There's a lot of bad signal put there, and he seems open.
Quote from: Alty on April 08, 2013, 04:04:15 AM
Quote from: stelz on April 08, 2013, 04:00:33 AM
Quote from: Cainad on April 08, 2013, 03:07:15 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 01:00:49 AM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 10:42:58 PM
I see it as either I have the minor inconvenience of alleviating these people's ails, or the minor inconvenience of defending my property/white flighting my ass away from those who'd steal from me.
Whoa.
Shades of George Zimmerman.
I'm out.
There's a biped somewhere in there, TGRR. It's just been buried in a fuckton of bad signal.
Uhhh, Cainad, he said "defending my property/white flighting my ass away from those who'd steal from me."
And he thinks poor people have to be "productive" after a set time on some inadequate aid. I guess people with a fuckton of money are "productive". Like the Kardashians.
People ought to be allowed to be dumb.
I agree with Cainad, I think he just doesn't know any better. There's a lot of bad signal put there, and he seems open.
OK.
Maybe he's from Houston or something. Benefit of doubt given.
Quote from: stelz on April 08, 2013, 04:00:33 AM
Uhhh, Cainad, he said "defending my property/white flighting my ass away from those who'd steal from me."
And he thinks poor people have to be "productive" after a set time on some inadequate aid. I guess people with a fuckton of money are "productive". Like the Kardashians.
I stand by what I said, as per the following glimmers of bipedalism:
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 11:34:34 PM
Well, call it perhaps me being indoctrinated by right-wing ideologies, (this thread is really making me realise how bad the materials I've been reading in the past 3-5 years have really been), but instead of being angry at a private business, I feel I need to be angry with myself for being only worth 9.50/hr...I use this sort of self-loathing as motivation for taking action to better my self.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 11:41:57 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 07, 2013, 11:36:54 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 11:30:54 PM
Quote from: Alty on April 07, 2013, 11:25:53 PM
Yeah, that's a good point.
You just argued that the safety net allowed you to get yourself to a better place. Where would have been without it?
[joke]I would have been a free market capitalist making a living as the executive of a local-scale marijuana sales firms[/joke]
In all seriousness, my old opinion is breaking down.
This is good too. Again, I come here mainly because this forum holds opinions that are so contrary to what I usually hold as valid. Thanks again, PD, for making me look retarded, such that I may further my understanding of political discourses!
The point is, if you were half as dependent on the system as you claim, without it you would be dead or in jail.
Ah, dude, totally got the point. My "joke" was intended to illustrate that idea.
It's causing cognitive dissonance that I used a system I was railing against, therefore, my opinions are breaking, and hopefully this allows me to see past a shit ton of bad literature that has led me into my current outlooks on things...
No one's born with smart thoughts in their head. If you've had the bad luck to spend your intellectually formative years surrounded by bad signal, then having the gonads to admit that at all is practically a miracle.
I'm 22 years old; if I hadn't found PD.com at the tender age of 17, who knows what kind of crap might have accumulated in my brain?
He has said a number of disgusting things, but he hasn't stood his ground for any of them, which can mean a number of things:
-Lack of integrity for his beliefs.
-Peer pressure.
-A sincere questioning of his (loose) beliefs.
And since none of us are mind-readers, I dunno, maybe give the guy a chance?
Crazy idea, I know.
Quote from: The Johnny on April 08, 2013, 04:28:00 AM
He has said a number of disgusting things, but he hasn't stood his ground for any of them, which can mean a number of things:
-Lack of integrity for his beliefs.
-Peer pressure.
-A sincere questioning of his (loose) beliefs.
I'm trending towards the third option, but then again I'm overdue to have my optimism gland drained.
Not that I'm advising being merciful or anything. :lulz: It
is PD, after all.
Quote from: Cain on April 07, 2013, 08:50:23 PM
It's putting people on welfare through a humiliating and potentially worthless set of tests, designed to see if they meet arbitrary standards of being the "moral poor". I mean, what's the contention here? That people addicted to drugs don't starve? They're probably financing their habit through crime anyway, it's not like the welfare system pays enough to sustain a long-term drug habit.
And you know what? If it was put in place it would almost certainly cost more to set up and run the entire drug testing system than would be saved by catching the few crackheads trying to cheat the system. Who wins? The labs doing the tests. Not the taxpayer, not the people on welfare and not drug addicts.
It has been put in place in several states, was incredibly expensive to run, and the percentage of those receiving aid who tested positive for drugs was negligible.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 08, 2013, 04:44:42 AM
Quote from: Cain on April 07, 2013, 08:50:23 PM
It's putting people on welfare through a humiliating and potentially worthless set of tests, designed to see if they meet arbitrary standards of being the "moral poor". I mean, what's the contention here? That people addicted to drugs don't starve? They're probably financing their habit through crime anyway, it's not like the welfare system pays enough to sustain a long-term drug habit.
And you know what? If it was put in place it would almost certainly cost more to set up and run the entire drug testing system than would be saved by catching the few crackheads trying to cheat the system. Who wins? The labs doing the tests. Not the taxpayer, not the people on welfare and not drug addicts.
It has been put in place in several states, was incredibly expensive to run, and the percentage of those receiving aid who tested positive for drugs was negligible.
But, but...who will keep Quest Labs creating JOBS if they don't have government contracts and grant-money to employ all those $8-an-hour workers to watch people pee?
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 11:17:50 PM
Quote from: Alty on April 07, 2013, 11:06:32 PM
Oh, hah, you guise, I'm sure there's no way this guy is in fact a typical white male, early 20's who just shat his britches after downing Atlas Shrugged and is riding high in a wave of unknown entitlement.
That would just be, well, the kind of trite cliche that doesn't happen in real life. Right?
Your definition of "entitlement" is confusing to me. In the places in which I see the term usually, entitlement is used as a term against those who believe that the state should provide welfare under the assumption that every human being is "entitled" to resources.
Also, haven't read Ayn Rand since highschool...and to be honest, back then I was the dirty pot smoking hippy who would have probably been poking fun of current me for being such a harsh and evil man -- if anything, at that stage, I saw Rand's works as being anti-authoritarian rather than being related to free market capitalism...mainly because I was stupid at the time. No, it wasn't Ayn Rand who turned me to my current beliefs about the world...it was living life under the boot of government welfare, poverty, and all of its short comings and abuses that motivated me to strive to be better than not only my neighbours, but my prior self as well.
In other words, I was once one of those "degenerate poor" that I may come off as railing against. Being such a pathetic thing made me hate myself. That hate towards my situation motivated me to strive to be better than myself.
Oh. A bootstrapper. :lol:
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 11:34:34 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 07, 2013, 11:26:50 PM
And also it amuses me that you're mad at poor people instead of the corporations that are responsible for the fact that you're only making $9.50 an hour.
What you should be doing instead of being racist and classist is going after the entities responsible for the situation.
Well, call it perhaps me being indoctrinated by right-wing ideologies, (this thread is really making me realise how bad the materials I've been reading in the past 3-5 years have really been), but instead of being angry at a private business, I feel I need to be angry with myself for being only worth 9.50/hr...I use this sort of self-loathing as motivation for taking action to better my self.
Really? I'm not using self-loathing, I'm using loathing of the system as motivation for getting my PhD and bettering myself.
I grew up poor, had a successful business, lost it, and am in college working hard and doing well. Also poor as fuck and on food stamps. I don't see any particular reason to hate myself for growing up poor or losing my business in the recession, though. That's illogical and unproductive, and not particularly conducive to acquiring the skills and presenting the self-confidence necessary to be a good writer and public speaker, which are skills I will need as a neuroscience researcher.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 11:51:47 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 07, 2013, 11:42:12 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 11:39:11 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 07, 2013, 11:33:21 PM
Quote from: Six Feet of Sole on April 07, 2013, 11:29:31 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 07, 2013, 11:26:50 PM
And also it amuses me that you're mad at poor people instead of the corporations that are responsible for the fact that you're only making $9.50 an hour.
What you should be doing instead of being racist and classist is going after the entities responsible for the situation.
Jeezus dude, that's going a bit far don't you think? I mean, sure, rib the kid for being young or whatever but calling him a racist is a bit much I think.
If a white person uses the words "white flighting" to describe an action they have or may feel they have to take in order to "defend" their property, there's 169% chance they're a racist, even if they don't, strictly speaking, realize it.
I'll be brutally honest in saying that I was attacked by a group of 7 or so african americans and this resulted in my being injured so bad that I wasn't able to complete college, or even walk for about a year. So, yes, due to some unresolved PTSD, I do hold some subconscious racism.
I'd like to resolve those issues, though...it's hard to find materials related to deconditioning racist tendancies, though, since the whole notion of the "white male racist" is so criminalised...
What does that even mean?
Also, go read the BIP.
The BIP isn't helpful to me on the issue...tbh, all I ever take away from the BIP when I read it can be summed up in 2 or 3 pages in the principia; the ones related to psycho-metaphysics....
anyway...
Try googling something like "curing racism" or "racism counseling" or any number of queries that essentially relate to "I'm racist and don't want to be anymore"...90% of your top articles relate to essentially calling white males who hold racist views tiny-dicked hicks or self-loathing bastards. They're also more typically editorials moreso than self help...
Huh...while writing this post, I did note something interesting though...
In the video "how to operate your brain", Tim Leary talks about how "those who control your eyeballs, control your brain"...I interpret this as meaing "the more shit you read/watch, the more shit you think, and thus shit becomes truth."
I've been reading/watching bad shit for some time...perhaps me coming to PD is beneficial in that I'm replacing bad shit, with shit that conflicts with the shit I hold true. Mabey if I linger long enough, I can become reconditioned simply by removing my usual shit from my viewing habits...
Sorry for the tl;dr rant
Why would you need to google that shit? Any decent therapist with PTSD skills and experience should be able to work with you on that. Google isn't going to do fuck-all for you.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 08, 2013, 05:03:21 AM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 11:51:47 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 07, 2013, 11:42:12 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 11:39:11 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 07, 2013, 11:33:21 PM
Quote from: Six Feet of Sole on April 07, 2013, 11:29:31 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 07, 2013, 11:26:50 PM
And also it amuses me that you're mad at poor people instead of the corporations that are responsible for the fact that you're only making $9.50 an hour.
What you should be doing instead of being racist and classist is going after the entities responsible for the situation.
Jeezus dude, that's going a bit far don't you think? I mean, sure, rib the kid for being young or whatever but calling him a racist is a bit much I think.
If a white person uses the words "white flighting" to describe an action they have or may feel they have to take in order to "defend" their property, there's 169% chance they're a racist, even if they don't, strictly speaking, realize it.
I'll be brutally honest in saying that I was attacked by a group of 7 or so african americans and this resulted in my being injured so bad that I wasn't able to complete college, or even walk for about a year. So, yes, due to some unresolved PTSD, I do hold some subconscious racism.
I'd like to resolve those issues, though...it's hard to find materials related to deconditioning racist tendancies, though, since the whole notion of the "white male racist" is so criminalised...
What does that even mean?
Also, go read the BIP.
The BIP isn't helpful to me on the issue...tbh, all I ever take away from the BIP when I read it can be summed up in 2 or 3 pages in the principia; the ones related to psycho-metaphysics....
anyway...
Try googling something like "curing racism" or "racism counseling" or any number of queries that essentially relate to "I'm racist and don't want to be anymore"...90% of your top articles relate to essentially calling white males who hold racist views tiny-dicked hicks or self-loathing bastards. They're also more typically editorials moreso than self help...
Huh...while writing this post, I did note something interesting though...
In the video "how to operate your brain", Tim Leary talks about how "those who control your eyeballs, control your brain"...I interpret this as meaing "the more shit you read/watch, the more shit you think, and thus shit becomes truth."
I've been reading/watching bad shit for some time...perhaps me coming to PD is beneficial in that I'm replacing bad shit, with shit that conflicts with the shit I hold true. Mabey if I linger long enough, I can become reconditioned simply by removing my usual shit from my viewing habits...
Sorry for the tl;dr rant
Why would you need to google that shit? Any decent therapist with PTSD skills and experience should be able to work with you on that. Google isn't going to do fuck-all for you.
No money to seek professional help...too poor to afford healthcare, too "rich" to have someone else afford it for me
Quote from: Cainad on April 08, 2013, 03:07:15 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 01:00:49 AM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 10:42:58 PM
I see it as either I have the minor inconvenience of alleviating these people's ails, or the minor inconvenience of defending my property/white flighting my ass away from those who'd steal from me.
Whoa.
Shades of George Zimmerman.
I'm out.
There's a biped somewhere in there, TGRR. It's just been buried in a fuckton of bad signal.
We'll see. I've been disappointed in this manner one time too many, though, to get my hopes up.
Also, I'm more than a little tired of the discussion...How many Randites have we tripped over in the last 10 years? Either you're a human being, or you're some kind of production biot. It's one or the other, and frankly, I'm just going to wait until the issue is resolved before I put any effort into talking to this guy.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 05:07:49 AM
No money to seek professional help...too poor to afford healthcare, too "rich" to have someone else afford it for me
Translation: Can't be arsed to look for it, will assume smudgy people took it all anyway.
See what I mean, Cainad?
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 05:07:49 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 08, 2013, 05:03:21 AM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 11:51:47 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 07, 2013, 11:42:12 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 11:39:11 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 07, 2013, 11:33:21 PM
Quote from: Six Feet of Sole on April 07, 2013, 11:29:31 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 07, 2013, 11:26:50 PM
And also it amuses me that you're mad at poor people instead of the corporations that are responsible for the fact that you're only making $9.50 an hour.
What you should be doing instead of being racist and classist is going after the entities responsible for the situation.
Jeezus dude, that's going a bit far don't you think? I mean, sure, rib the kid for being young or whatever but calling him a racist is a bit much I think.
If a white person uses the words "white flighting" to describe an action they have or may feel they have to take in order to "defend" their property, there's 169% chance they're a racist, even if they don't, strictly speaking, realize it.
I'll be brutally honest in saying that I was attacked by a group of 7 or so african americans and this resulted in my being injured so bad that I wasn't able to complete college, or even walk for about a year. So, yes, due to some unresolved PTSD, I do hold some subconscious racism.
I'd like to resolve those issues, though...it's hard to find materials related to deconditioning racist tendancies, though, since the whole notion of the "white male racist" is so criminalised...
What does that even mean?
Also, go read the BIP.
The BIP isn't helpful to me on the issue...tbh, all I ever take away from the BIP when I read it can be summed up in 2 or 3 pages in the principia; the ones related to psycho-metaphysics....
anyway...
Try googling something like "curing racism" or "racism counseling" or any number of queries that essentially relate to "I'm racist and don't want to be anymore"...90% of your top articles relate to essentially calling white males who hold racist views tiny-dicked hicks or self-loathing bastards. They're also more typically editorials moreso than self help...
Huh...while writing this post, I did note something interesting though...
In the video "how to operate your brain", Tim Leary talks about how "those who control your eyeballs, control your brain"...I interpret this as meaing "the more shit you read/watch, the more shit you think, and thus shit becomes truth."
I've been reading/watching bad shit for some time...perhaps me coming to PD is beneficial in that I'm replacing bad shit, with shit that conflicts with the shit I hold true. Mabey if I linger long enough, I can become reconditioned simply by removing my usual shit from my viewing habits...
Sorry for the tl;dr rant
Why would you need to google that shit? Any decent therapist with PTSD skills and experience should be able to work with you on that. Google isn't going to do fuck-all for you.
No money to seek professional help...too poor to afford healthcare, too "rich" to have someone else afford it for me
Almost evoked sympathy
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 05:10:25 AM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 05:07:49 AM
No money to seek professional help...too poor to afford healthcare, too "rich" to have someone else afford it for me
Translation: Can't be arsed to look for it, will assume smudgy people took it all anyway.
See what I mean, Cainad?
Oof.
I guess that's what I get for screwing around with Dok Howl's Cynicism Mind Lazor. I had the fucking thing in reverse and, well... yeah.
Quote from: Cainad on April 08, 2013, 05:19:12 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 05:10:25 AM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 05:07:49 AM
No money to seek professional help...too poor to afford healthcare, too "rich" to have someone else afford it for me
Translation: Can't be arsed to look for it, will assume smudgy people took it all anyway.
See what I mean, Cainad?
Oof.
I guess that's what I get for screwing around with Dok Howl's Cynicism Mind Lazor. I had the fucking thing in reverse and, well... yeah.
It's not that he's not intelligent enough, or anything. It's that he's emotionally invested in "not being wrong" and being "smarter than the liberals" or whatnot. Perhaps he has gained some sort of status in the teabagger crowd, and wants to maintain it, or maybe he just likes having things fed to him on AM radio.
In any case, he will dig his heels in on the privilege/entitlement thing, because it's easier than thinking.
I did notice, however, that nobody actually explained what privilege/entitlement really means when he brought it up. I'm heading to bed. I'll post something tomorrow if he's gonna be around.
How am I digging my heels in on the issue? The statement you quoted, roger, simply concerns my financial situation. Sure, I retorted smugly about it, but when it comes down to it, you seem to be saying that by stating my fiscal situation, I'm reinforcing an opinion.
If I don't have the ability to purchase something, how is this fact simply me digging my heels in?
Tl;dr youre putting words in my mouth
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 05:29:21 AM
How am I digging my heels in on the issue? The statement you quoted, roger, simply concerns my financial situation. Sure, I retorted smugly about it, but when it comes down to it, you seem to be saying that by stating my fiscal situation, I'm reinforcing an opinion.
If I don't have the ability to purchase something, how is this fact simply me digging my heels in?
Tl;dr youre putting words in my mouth
Keeps coming back the entitlement thing, or being "smug" as you put it.
I live in Tucson, which isn't exactly a vast pot of wealth - to put it mildly - and people get treated all the time with no income, some income, or even a fairly good-sized income. DES is actually pretty damn good about it, despite our state government. It's there, just about everywhere. You have to go get it, though. You might even have to wait in line.
It occurs to me, though, that you and I are using "entitlement" in very different ways.
I'll explain myself tomorrow.
Sounds fair roger.
Ill concede that you're correct that I've not sought help directly...
Regardless, I'm interested in your definition of entitlement...
Regardless, sleep well
VZ: I'm just amused that you have such disdain for people that you, making $9.50/hr and no health insurance, are just one bad day away from joining.
LULZ! LULZ, I say!
How much actual income tax did you even pay last year? Maybe $500?
Tomorrow, time permitting, I will dig up a tumblr post with all sorts of cheap mental health services in a lot of states.
And, again, be mad at the entities responsible for your situation. It's not poor people, it's corporations that manipulate government and society in general for their own, fucking the rest of us over, ends.
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 08, 2013, 07:38:30 AM
VZ: I'm just amused that you have such disdain for people that you, making $9.50/hr and no health insurance, are just one bad day away from joining.
LULZ! LULZ, I say!
How much actual income tax did you even pay last year? Maybe $500?
You underestimate me for sure. Although I alone make 9.50, total household income for myself, my wife and our room mate is roughly 3-3.5 times my own income.
Bluntly stated, I'm moreso a bad day away from having to give up the internet and cable than I am a bad day away from destitution.
Also, at a VERY rough estimate, I payed about 2500 in federal taxes last year...
Anyway, I hold no disdain for the poor. I hold disdain for those who don't try to stop being poor. For instance, Nigel mentioned that she is receiving aid. She also mentioned that she's attending classes of some sort in order to improve herself. There is no hatred in me over this use of public funds. My reasoning being that the recipient isnt simply "gaming the system", but rather is using public funds to recover from a disasterous situation.
Now then, if the recipient of aid were in their predicament due to voluntary actions, (I.e. improper "family planning", drug use) then of course I would feel no sympathy, as the situation could have been avoided had the recipient made better choices.
Dude, working as a measure of a person's worth is so ingrained in our society (and also being poor sucks and it's not like welfare is paying anyone the big bucks) that I doubt there are many people who are gaming the system.
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 07:42:52 AM
Tomorrow, time permitting, I will dig up a tumblr post with all sorts of cheap mental health services in a lot of states.
And, again, be mad at the entities responsible for your situation. It's not poor people, it's corporations that manipulate government and society in general for their own, fucking the rest of us over, ends.
don't bother looking into mental health facilities. I hate to be rude, but I will inevitably ignore the lot of them; experiences with psychological workers in my youth have unfortunately turned me off to placing trust in people payed to practice psychological medicine. Couple this with the number of people I know who are so "mentally ill" that they are barred from working due to expressing unpopular ideas to doctors, ill gladly say id rather be a crypto-racist than lose my right to work.
don't get me wrong, though. you've been kind to me in trying to help! I thank you graciously for spending your efforts.
Your talk of blaming the corporate world for society's ills rings true to me...especially consitering the prison-industrial complex fuckery I've been skimming in other threads (not really a new concept to me...just need light reading to keep my mind fresh).
I guess if small-money me can be so unconcerned about others, I can only imagine the degree of callousness my bosses-bosses-bosses-bosses-boss must possess in order to have out-fucked the men below him. Really interesting way to consiter things...
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 08:43:03 AM
Dude, working as a measure of a person's worth is so ingrained in our society (and also being poor sucks and it's not like welfare is paying anyone the big bucks) that I doubt there are many people who are gaming the system.
If not outright "gaming", I'm willing to definitely state there are those who get WAAAY more than is really...I guess, fair?
For instance, I spend about $75 monthly on groceries (for myself) and essentially eat prepackaged shit all day every day because its what I afford.
In the same instance, a friend of mine recieves $200 in food stamps monthly for himself, and has his fridge decked out with steak and fancy cakes and all sorts of other top-shelf shit I can't afford.
I guess I can follow you in blaming my employer for not paying me enough, but its this sort of thing that gets me pissed on the whole welfare issue everytime. Essentially, I see myself working hard to eat shit, while my buddy gets to eat like a king for nothing...
There's this tendency in human psychological trends, that the more money you make per year, the more entitled you feel about it, something about realizing deep down that all that money you are making comes from pure luck and circumstance rather than hard work or a useful ability/service to others, so you create this fantasy representation on how smart, sacrificial, useful and hard working you are compared to all the "fucking lazy, bottom feeder slobs" that make any amount less than yourself.
But Roger can explain to you tomorrow about entitlement.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 08:55:15 AM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 08:43:03 AM
Dude, working as a measure of a person's worth is so ingrained in our society (and also being poor sucks and it's not like welfare is paying anyone the big bucks) that I doubt there are many people who are gaming the system.
If not outright "gaming", I'm willing to definitely state there are those who get WAAAY more than is really...I guess, fair?
For instance, I spend about $75 monthly on groceries (for myself) and essentially eat prepackaged shit all day every day because its what I afford.
In the same instance, a friend of mine recieves $200 in food stamps monthly for himself, and has his fridge decked out with steak and fancy cakes and all sorts of other top-shelf shit I can't afford.
I guess I can follow you in blaming my employer for not paying me enough, but its this sort of thing that gets me pissed on the whole welfare issue everytime. Essentially, I see myself working hard to eat shit, while my buddy gets to eat like a king for nothing...
Perhaps you'd be better off on social security? Why not quit your job if its so much better?
Principally, because I would likely become suicidally bored without work.
Quote from: The Johnny on April 08, 2013, 09:02:11 AM
There's this tendency in human psychological trends, that the more money you make per year, the more entitled you feel about it, something about realizing deep down that all that money you are making comes from pure luck and circumstance rather than hard work or a useful ability/service to others, so you create this fantasy representation on how smart, sacrificial, useful and hard working you are compared to all the "fucking lazy, bottom feeder slobs" that make any amount less than yourself.
But Roger can explain to you tomorrow about entitlement.
If this is how entitlement is defined here, then I can fully see why roger was saying that I'm digging in...
...because there really isn't enough LSD on this entire planet to be able to recondition me to believe that effort doesn't have some sort of meaningful outcome.
Call me intellectually flawed, call me an incorrigible primate, call me a dumb rand-tard or even call me outright evil, but in the end, my own experience tells me that my own efforts matter
in addition to luck and circumstance[\i].
If I'm reading this definition of "entitlement" correctly as meaning "nothing you do effects your outcome", then I can honestly say that there isn't really anything more about welfare I can take from this thread if it relies on this concept of entitlement.
Im not putting words on his mouth; anyhow, you kind of missed my point, in which i was speaking of a self-serving bias.
I don't really know if im not conveying myself clearly (this not my native tongue after all) or if you deliberately chose to understand something else out of convenience, either way its pretty late so im gonna go.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 08:33:58 AM
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 08, 2013, 07:38:30 AM
VZ: I'm just amused that you have such disdain for people that you, making $9.50/hr and no health insurance, are just one bad day away from joining.
LULZ! LULZ, I say!
How much actual income tax did you even pay last year? Maybe $500?
You underestimate me for sure. Although I alone make 9.50, total household income for myself, my wife and our room mate is roughly 3-3.5 times my own income.
Bluntly stated, I'm moreso a bad day away from having to give up the internet and cable than I am a bad day away from destitution.
Also, at a VERY rough estimate, I payed about 2500 in federal taxes last year...
Anyway, I hold no disdain for the poor. I hold disdain for those who don't try to stop being poor. For instance, Nigel mentioned that she is receiving aid. She also mentioned that she's attending classes of some sort in order to improve herself. There is no hatred in me over this use of public funds. My reasoning being that the recipient isnt simply "gaming the system", but rather is using public funds to recover from a disasterous situation.
Now then, if the recipient of aid were in their predicament due to voluntary actions, (I.e. improper "family planning", drug use) then of course I would feel no sympathy, as the situation could have been avoided had the recipient made better choices.
Are you including SS and Medicare in that figure? If not, you should let someone else do your taxes.
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 08, 2013, 09:57:28 AM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 08:33:58 AM
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 08, 2013, 07:38:30 AM
VZ: I'm just amused that you have such disdain for people that you, making $9.50/hr and no health insurance, are just one bad day away from joining.
LULZ! LULZ, I say!
How much actual income tax did you even pay last year? Maybe $500?
You underestimate me for sure. Although I alone make 9.50, total household income for myself, my wife and our room mate is roughly 3-3.5 times my own income.
Bluntly stated, I'm moreso a bad day away from having to give up the internet and cable than I am a bad day away from destitution.
Also, at a VERY rough estimate, I payed about 2500 in federal taxes last year...
Anyway, I hold no disdain for the poor. I hold disdain for those who don't try to stop being poor. For instance, Nigel mentioned that she is receiving aid. She also mentioned that she's attending classes of some sort in order to improve herself. There is no hatred in me over this use of public funds. My reasoning being that the recipient isnt simply "gaming the system", but rather is using public funds to recover from a disasterous situation.
Now then, if the recipient of aid were in their predicament due to voluntary actions, (I.e. improper "family planning", drug use) then of course I would feel no sympathy, as the situation could have been avoided had the recipient made better choices.
Are you including SS and Medicare in that figure? If not, you should let someone else do your taxes.
As stated, that was an extremely rough estimate. I don't exactly have my w2 in front of me, so I ghetto rigged a figure that approximates total taxes payed.
The actual math behind that number was:
(9.50*40*52)/10
And then rounded up to 2500 to account for municipal tax.
Anyway, if johnny defined entitlement correctly, then no further argument will really be able to convince me of anything if it relies on that definition. Ill wait for roger to pitch his 2 cents on it out of respect for the man, but if johnny nailed down his point, then the view this board takes on entitlement is too batshit insane for me to accept...
...and thats with or without ad hominem attacks
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 08, 2013, 07:38:30 AM
VZ: I'm just amused that you have such disdain for people that you, making $9.50/hr and no health insurance, are just one bad day away from joining.
LULZ! LULZ, I say!
How much actual income tax did you even pay last year? Maybe $500?
He's already there, my friend. That's the magic of the neo-con mystique and (not to Arken the thread) it employs the same basic, uncomplicated tactics that makes Orwell brilliant.
I'm always surprised by how many people read 1984 and missed THE most important message in the whole fucking thing: "Big Brother" isn't an omnipresent, separate watchful government agent. Big Brother is all of
us. The government doesn't need to watch, they've got us persecuting
each other.
And in fact, we do a better job of it. In the absence of resources, we're crueler, less-tolerant and less likely to show any mercy. Our standards for persecuting the weak become more depraved and we become more comfortable with that becoming the norm the more desperate we get.
BIP, indeed.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 05:07:49 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 08, 2013, 05:03:21 AM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 11:51:47 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 07, 2013, 11:42:12 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 11:39:11 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 07, 2013, 11:33:21 PM
Quote from: Six Feet of Sole on April 07, 2013, 11:29:31 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 07, 2013, 11:26:50 PM
And also it amuses me that you're mad at poor people instead of the corporations that are responsible for the fact that you're only making $9.50 an hour.
What you should be doing instead of being racist and classist is going after the entities responsible for the situation.
Jeezus dude, that's going a bit far don't you think? I mean, sure, rib the kid for being young or whatever but calling him a racist is a bit much I think.
If a white person uses the words "white flighting" to describe an action they have or may feel they have to take in order to "defend" their property, there's 169% chance they're a racist, even if they don't, strictly speaking, realize it.
I'll be brutally honest in saying that I was attacked by a group of 7 or so african americans and this resulted in my being injured so bad that I wasn't able to complete college, or even walk for about a year. So, yes, due to some unresolved PTSD, I do hold some subconscious racism.
I'd like to resolve those issues, though...it's hard to find materials related to deconditioning racist tendancies, though, since the whole notion of the "white male racist" is so criminalised...
What does that even mean?
Also, go read the BIP.
The BIP isn't helpful to me on the issue...tbh, all I ever take away from the BIP when I read it can be summed up in 2 or 3 pages in the principia; the ones related to psycho-metaphysics....
anyway...
Try googling something like "curing racism" or "racism counseling" or any number of queries that essentially relate to "I'm racist and don't want to be anymore"...90% of your top articles relate to essentially calling white males who hold racist views tiny-dicked hicks or self-loathing bastards. They're also more typically editorials moreso than self help...
Huh...while writing this post, I did note something interesting though...
In the video "how to operate your brain", Tim Leary talks about how "those who control your eyeballs, control your brain"...I interpret this as meaing "the more shit you read/watch, the more shit you think, and thus shit becomes truth."
I've been reading/watching bad shit for some time...perhaps me coming to PD is beneficial in that I'm replacing bad shit, with shit that conflicts with the shit I hold true. Mabey if I linger long enough, I can become reconditioned simply by removing my usual shit from my viewing habits...
Sorry for the tl;dr rant
Why would you need to google that shit? Any decent therapist with PTSD skills and experience should be able to work with you on that. Google isn't going to do fuck-all for you.
No money to seek professional help...too poor to afford healthcare, too "rich" to have someone else afford it for me
Oh, please. :roll:
You clearly haven't really tried, since there are therapists who do sliding scale and programs for crime victims, etc.
If *I* could afford therapy raising three kids on $16k/year with no insurance, you can too. Cut back on beer or cigarettes for a week, or whatever stupid little indulgences you allow yourself. Get a roommate. I have no fucking pity for you, whiny single white boy with no responsibilities.
Also, you know what? I used to pay over $35,000/year in taxes and I never begrudged a penny that went so that people who need it more than you could have a fucking chance in life, so just shut your stupid, whiny, entitled bitch mouth. Go back to school and fight the system that makes it so fucking hard for little people to get ahead or even survive.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 08:33:58 AM
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 08, 2013, 07:38:30 AM
VZ: I'm just amused that you have such disdain for people that you, making $9.50/hr and no health insurance, are just one bad day away from joining.
LULZ! LULZ, I say!
How much actual income tax did you even pay last year? Maybe $500?
You underestimate me for sure. Although I alone make 9.50, total household income for myself, my wife and our room mate is roughly 3-3.5 times my own income.
Bluntly stated, I'm moreso a bad day away from having to give up the internet and cable than I am a bad day away from destitution.
Also, at a VERY rough estimate, I payed about 2500 in federal taxes last year...
Anyway, I hold no disdain for the poor. I hold disdain for those who don't try to stop being poor. For instance, Nigel mentioned that she is receiving aid. She also mentioned that she's attending classes of some sort in order to improve herself. There is no hatred in me over this use of public funds. My reasoning being that the recipient isnt simply "gaming the system", but rather is using public funds to recover from a disasterous situation.
Now then, if the recipient of aid were in their predicament due to voluntary actions, (I.e. improper "family planning", drug use) then of course I would feel no sympathy, as the situation could have been avoided had the recipient made better choices.
OH, OH, IT GETS BETTER. WHINY LITTLE SACK OF SHIT ALSO HAS A FINANCIAL SUPPORT SYSTEM in the form of a wife and a roommate. So, OK, double income, no kids, cheap rent, and he's absolutely being subsidized by people who earn more and pay more taxes than he does to support the infrastructure, whining about how he's too poor to afford therapy, which he actually has never even bothered to seek out.
SHUT UP, YOU WHINY LITTLE TURD.
Has it ever occurred to you that the vast majority of people receiving aid would really rather be working and supporting themselves? Assistance is not only humiliating, it's also a convoluted and confusing stream of paperwork that never seems to end. I'm glad that food stamps are relatively easy, but I tried to apply for health benefits once and... well, if you've ever owned your own business and never declared bankruptcy, you're fucked forever in terms of paperwork and "proving" that you really don't make money anymore.
Here's a fun fact for you: The vast majority of people receiving aid
are either working, or in school.
Lazy fuckers.
As far as your "poor family planning" comment, most of the single mothers receiving aid WEREN'T SINGLE WHEN THEY GOT PREGNANT. Nor did they anticipate being single down the road. But when their husband starts fucking around on them and finds someone they want to stick their dick in more, and they end up divorced, who usually ends up in the economic shitter trying to raise a kid or three? It really doesn't take a fucking genius, Einstein.
Here, read this, it's funny but true: http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-things-politicians-will-never-understand-about-poor-people/
Get your dumb ass out there and LEARN SOMETHING about the way the world really works before you make yourself sound even more like an inbred teabilly spouting off about "white flight" and "family planning". Jesus fuck.
I think what Nigel's trying to say is that you're not listening. You came here seemingly to tell but when people make suggestions, you knock them down and moreover, you're knocking them down with a bunch of self-sabotaging political party-line silliness than makes you sound like a trained squirrel.
When someone recommended the BIP to you, it was an insult for you to dismiss that so readily because it symbolizes a lot of really deep personal reflection and internal "bullshit policework" we did to eliminate a lot of illusions with the understanding that you can never eliminate ALL of them.
But it's not really us you're insulting in the long-run, it's yourself. You see us and not being able to comprehend your plight. We're a bunch of know-it-alls who have a lot to say and are throwing bricks at you.
We see you as a guy, sitting in a mud puddle, smearing mud all over his own face...who can't see where he is or what he's doing because there's mud on his face.
Go back and take another look. Here's a hint: when you're CERTAIN you have it all figured out and there's nothing left to look at, there's something else to look at.
I was really hoping this was going to be a "screeching monkey stands up" story, and then he said he'd rather be racist than labeled crazy.
Combined household income is what, $5100+/month and he's "too poor" to get off his whiny racist ass and find a therapist. :lol:
And only paid $2500 last year in taxes, which means he's STILL being subsidized by people who earn more, and whining about it.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 09:24:14 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 08, 2013, 09:02:11 AM
There's this tendency in human psychological trends, that the more money you make per year, the more entitled you feel about it, something about realizing deep down that all that money you are making comes from pure luck and circumstance rather than hard work or a useful ability/service to others, so you create this fantasy representation on how smart, sacrificial, useful and hard working you are compared to all the "fucking lazy, bottom feeder slobs" that make any amount less than yourself.
But Roger can explain to you tomorrow about entitlement.
If this is how entitlement is defined here, then I can fully see why roger was saying that I'm digging in...
...because there really isn't enough LSD on this entire planet to be able to recondition me to believe that effort doesn't have some sort of meaningful outcome.
Call me intellectually flawed, call me an incorrigible primate, call me a dumb rand-tard or even call me outright evil, but in the end, my own experience tells me that my own efforts matter in addition to luck and circumstance[\i].
If I'm reading this definition of "entitlement" correctly as meaning "nothing you do effects your outcome", then I can honestly say that there isn't really anything more about welfare I can take from this thread if it relies on this concept of entitlement.
You are totally not reading it correctly, but it's pretty apparent that you don't really want to, so I'm not gonna bother with you any further.
"Kill your darlings," someone once said.
You need to let go of your most cherished beliefs because they are killing your brain. To use a metaphor you'll understand: They are sitting on the sofa in your head on their fat asses, doing NOTHING for you but lounging around, watching TV and eating all the Früzen Glacé. You are paying the price for them to be there and no other beliefs who are willing to roll up their sleeves and do meaningful, useful WORK for you can get in because your existing ones are catching a check. And why? Because you like them. Not because they work hard or reflect reality but because they are your favorites.
I'd like to pity the poor fuck who made Nigel go FULL NIGEL but he's a little shitneck, so instead I laugh my socialist, feminist, eurotrash, pinko commie librul ass off.
Sometimes i wish I was queer and a woman of colour. Because THEN I'd be old white man in america's worst nightmare
And i like it when nigel smashes her housebrick of troof down.
Isn't Tennessee one of them stoopid abstinence only sex ed states?
It's in the South, so it's a safe bet.
Okay, I need to vomit more or this fuck is going to be stewing in my brain all day and I have work to do.
He starts off saying "I'm a little racist because PTSD." Well, I guess admitting the problem is the first step. So good job maybe. Then it's "I can't afford to get treated for PTSD." Then people who have no reason to be nice to him offer help finding affordable options for therapy and it's "I don't want to see a shrink because stuff."
Fuck you, kid. No, seriously, fuck you and your stupid face. Maybe the person you turn into later won't be as bad as you are right now, but this guy? This guy sucks ass like a pro.
If you don't want to do the work to fix who you are, you want to stay the way you are. You are as bad as self-diagnosed assburgers. People say and do and think retarded things, people absorb bad signal and it takes a while to properly identify it and deal with the problem. It takes work not to be a complete and utter shit. I've said some really, really stupid things, more recently than I like to think about. I absorbed some bad signal from parents who Weren't Racist but seemed to have opinions about the types of people who live in apartment complexes and spend so much money on sneakers. And that shit's hard to dislodge. I spent years dealing with some faulty goddamn wiring in my brain that's tried to kill me, and it was hard work. And when people like you wander around blithely wallowing in their bad signal and bad wiring and expecting the rest of us to put up with it because you don't want to fix it? That's a slap in the face to all the work the bipeds around you have done to try to be human.
^^^^ That. You're willfully a racist, classist little shit. Roger was right.
The last thing I feel like putting up with is some inbred hayseed condescending to me about "family planning" and how at least I'm trying to "better myself" because I'm taking food stamps while I work toward getting PhD and support four kids, one of which isn't even mine.
"Better myself". Fuck you, po'bucker. When my business was thriving and I had employees I wouldn't have hired you, because you don't have the fucking skills. Go better yourself.
Also, my property taxes are more than his "estimated" income tax, which I am pretty sure he is vastly overestimating. :roll: And he's whining about having to "support" lazy people who leech off the system. I'm pretty sure that the taxes I paid when I was rolling in it more than cover his entire existence.
Hmm. PTSD. I know all about PTSD. Believe me on that, if you believe nothing else I ever tell you.
And let me say that PTSD is not an excuse for anything, unless it's so bad that you can't function at all. Yes, it will make you predisposed toward given behaviors. It does not, however, render you incapable of value judgements or any other moral/ethical decisions. It does not give your Id an E-ticket to Disneyland.
In fact, I have found, in most people with actual PTSD, that they tend to become more ethical, not more likely to start ranting and raving about how rotten the poor are, and how POOR SLUTS SHOULD SHUT THEIR LEGS.
And on THAT score, here's the deal: Humans are wired to have children when they don't feel secure, just like any other mammal. It's a species survival thing...Bad times means mortality, means have more kids so that your tribe can claim more of the scarce resources.
Combine that with NOTHING ELSE TO DO and feelings of complete hopelessness, and you have poor people having kids all over the place. Not just in the USA, everywhere.
Rich people have less kids because they're rich, rather than the other way around. They are secure, so their urge to breed lessens.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 08, 2013, 04:37:34 PM
Also, my property taxes are more than his "estimated" income tax, which I am pretty sure he is vastly overestimating. :roll: And he's whining about having to "support" lazy people who leech off the system. I'm pretty sure that the taxes I paid when I was rolling in it more than cover his entire existence.
At his pay scale, he pays no income tax. He pays "payroll tax", which is a "federal tax", which is what he stated he pays.
Let's not get in a Humvee here and drive all over this now.
Look, kid, the reason we're trying to give you a shot here is because Cainad has some credibility round these parts and if he says there's some IRL value in that head of yours, I'm willing to try to crack it open and help you dump out all the garbage.
But you got Nigel's hackles up and that's a difficult thing to overcome. You made some dumbshit comments. It's okay. How you deal with it next will determin how you recover here. You need to regroup, rethink and restate...only THIS time, stop doing it from Glenn Beck's podium. Glenn Beck is a wealthy white man with three or four books, a TV show and a nice house in Texas. He knows nothing about what it means to make $9.50 an hour in 2013. 2013 is a vastly different world than the one he grew up in when he worked hard and "made it happen" for himself. He also had help along the way. And connections. And he's good-looking, which doesn't hurt.
You're a workaday dude with problems. Just like the rest of the $9.50/hour earners. But if you'd like to prove me wrong, you're certainly welcome to get off your ass and go get a job making multiple six-figures working for Fox or CNN today, if you want.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 04:41:00 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 08, 2013, 04:37:34 PM
Also, my property taxes are more than his "estimated" income tax, which I am pretty sure he is vastly overestimating. :roll: And he's whining about having to "support" lazy people who leech off the system. I'm pretty sure that the taxes I paid when I was rolling in it more than cover his entire existence.
At his pay scale, he pays no income tax. He pays "payroll tax", which is a "federal tax", which is what he stated he pays.
So he doesn't pay shit toward the infrastructure he leeches off of.
And he claims that PTSD made him racist, but he's too scared and lazy to get off his ass and seek help for it.
What a winner. I hope he doesn't reproduce, it'd mean that part of my taxes (assuming there are still jobs for neuroscientists when I graduate) will go to support his useless progeny, since he clearly isn't planning on making himself able to support them.
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 08, 2013, 04:45:56 PM
Let's not get in a Humvee here and drive all over this now.
Look, kid, the reason we're trying to give you a shot here is because Cainad has some credibility round these parts and if he says there's some IRL value in that head of yours, I'm willing to try to crack it open and help you dump out all the garbage.
But you got Nigel's hackles up and that's a difficult thing to overcome. You made some dumbshit comments. It's okay. How you deal with it next will determin how you recover here. You need to regroup, rethink and restate...only THIS time, stop doing it from Glenn Beck's podium. Glenn Beck is a wealthy white man with three or four books, a TV show and a nice house in Texas. He knows nothing about what it means to make $9.50 an hour in 2013. 2013 is a vastly different world than the one he grew up in when he worked hard and "made it happen" for himself. He also had help along the way. And connections. And he's good-looking, which doesn't hurt.
You're a workaday dude with problems. Just like the rest of the $9.50/hour earners. But if you'd like to prove me wrong, you're certainly welcome to get off your ass and go get a job making multiple six-figures working for Fox or CNN today, if you want.
I'm a colored single mother on food stamps, you know I can't afford a Humvee.
Just from a factual angle, I'm not sure that's why, Roger - more like, historically, poor people have had less access to birth control. The birth rates around here have dropped a hell of a lot since the economy went to shit and since universal access to birth control (actually, thanks, Obama!) the abortion rate has been halved.
Poor people have traditionally had more kids because they haven't had access to birth control and privileged little shit like VZ shit on them for being poor, essentially. Also, the "welfare queen" trope (which you're hinting at, VZ, with the "family planning" thing) is a racist fucking construct designed to control the sexuality of women and MOST especially that of women of color, since a lot of classism hinges on racism and WoC are, in a white society, seen as hypersexual.
Here's some reading on it, if you want to maybe try to stand on your hind feet. (http://books.google.com/books?id=IUkl40GNO0MC&pg=PA145#v=onepage&q&f=false)
I sometimes wonder whether people decide I'm a welfare queen when I pull my food card out of my Coach purse to pay for my organic beans and milk at Whole Foods.
I wonder, does getting divorced and having your business tank mean that you have to give away all your nice things and replace them with shit from Target?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 05:10:25 AM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 05:07:49 AM
No money to seek professional help...too poor to afford healthcare, too "rich" to have someone else afford it for me
Translation: Can't be arsed to look for it, will assume smudgy people took it all anyway.
See what I mean, Cainad?
It doesn't take professional help to clean the ground-in bullshit out of your head anyway. All it takes is looking around, asking yourself some questions, and answering them honestly.
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 04:56:12 PM
Just from a factual angle, I'm not sure that's why, Roger - more like, historically, poor people have had less access to birth control. The birth rates around here have dropped a hell of a lot since the economy went to shit and since universal access to birth control (actually, thanks, Obama!) the abortion rate has been halved.
Poor people have traditionally had more kids because they haven't had access to birth control and privileged little shit like VZ shit on them for being poor, essentially. Also, the "welfare queen" trope (which you're hinting at, VZ, with the "family planning" thing) is a racist fucking construct designed to control the sexuality of women and MOST especially that of women of color, since a lot of classism hinges on racism and WoC are, in a white society, seen as hypersexual.
Here's some reading on it, if you want to maybe try to stand on your hind feet. (http://books.google.com/books?id=IUkl40GNO0MC&pg=PA145#v=onepage&q&f=false)
Yeah, in the poorest countries women are agitating for access to birth control, and when they get it birth rates drop off sharply. We take access to birth control for granted, but in really poor areas women have neither reproductive education nor access to birth control.
And, of course, the upper class is resisting giving it to them, because if they have a choice they'd rather not crank out endless babies, and that means fewer serfs.
But Roger also has a point, which is that impoverished people also breed more because they don't see a better way to use their time and resources. Men in impoverished areas are the least likely to be willing to use condoms, the most likely to see having many children as signs of status, and the least likely to support them.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 08, 2013, 04:58:09 PM
I sometimes wonder whether people decide I'm a welfare queen when I pull my food card out of my Coach purse to pay for my organic beans and milk at Whole Foods.
I wonder, does getting divorced and having your business tank mean that you have to give away all your nice things and replace them with shit from Target?
a ) Personally, I would not make that assessment of you. I'd be likely to chalk it up to "I have no idea where that came from but clearly someone at the DES who knows some verified facts believes this person needs assistance so who am I to judge?"
b ) I actually prefer "shit from Target" to "nice things," but that's just me.
I wish I had real nets back and could join the discussion and put a UK perspective into the debate / drubbing new guy is getting.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 08, 2013, 04:54:57 PM
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 08, 2013, 04:45:56 PM
Let's not get in a Humvee here and drive all over this now.
Look, kid, the reason we're trying to give you a shot here is because Cainad has some credibility round these parts and if he says there's some IRL value in that head of yours, I'm willing to try to crack it open and help you dump out all the garbage.
But you got Nigel's hackles up and that's a difficult thing to overcome. You made some dumbshit comments. It's okay. How you deal with it next will determin how you recover here. You need to regroup, rethink and restate...only THIS time, stop doing it from Glenn Beck's podium. Glenn Beck is a wealthy white man with three or four books, a TV show and a nice house in Texas. He knows nothing about what it means to make $9.50 an hour in 2013. 2013 is a vastly different world than the one he grew up in when he worked hard and "made it happen" for himself. He also had help along the way. And connections. And he's good-looking, which doesn't hurt.
You're a workaday dude with problems. Just like the rest of the $9.50/hour earners. But if you'd like to prove me wrong, you're certainly welcome to get off your ass and go get a job making multiple six-figures working for Fox or CNN today, if you want.
I'm a colored single mother on food stamps, you know I can't afford a Humvee.
I love you so much. <3
Quote from: V3X on April 08, 2013, 05:04:34 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 08, 2013, 04:58:09 PM
I sometimes wonder whether people decide I'm a welfare queen when I pull my food card out of my Coach purse to pay for my organic beans and milk at Whole Foods.
I wonder, does getting divorced and having your business tank mean that you have to give away all your nice things and replace them with shit from Target?
a ) Personally, I would not make that assessment of you. I'd be likely to chalk it up to "I have no idea where that came from but clearly someone at the DES who knows some verified facts believes this person needs assistance so who am I to judge?"
b ) I actually prefer "shit from Target" to "nice things," but that's just me.
I don't like shit from Target because
A. most of it is made in China and I prefer not to support slave labor, and
B. it wears out fast which means you have to buy MORE slave-made shit.
My purse cost $300, but I doubt I'll ever have to buy a new one. Which is good, because I loathe shopping and I also really hate replacing things.
Of course, some Coach is now made in China, and that means I never WILL buy a new Coach, regardless.
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 08, 2013, 05:10:45 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 08, 2013, 04:54:57 PM
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 08, 2013, 04:45:56 PM
Let's not get in a Humvee here and drive all over this now.
Look, kid, the reason we're trying to give you a shot here is because Cainad has some credibility round these parts and if he says there's some IRL value in that head of yours, I'm willing to try to crack it open and help you dump out all the garbage.
But you got Nigel's hackles up and that's a difficult thing to overcome. You made some dumbshit comments. It's okay. How you deal with it next will determin how you recover here. You need to regroup, rethink and restate...only THIS time, stop doing it from Glenn Beck's podium. Glenn Beck is a wealthy white man with three or four books, a TV show and a nice house in Texas. He knows nothing about what it means to make $9.50 an hour in 2013. 2013 is a vastly different world than the one he grew up in when he worked hard and "made it happen" for himself. He also had help along the way. And connections. And he's good-looking, which doesn't hurt.
You're a workaday dude with problems. Just like the rest of the $9.50/hour earners. But if you'd like to prove me wrong, you're certainly welcome to get off your ass and go get a job making multiple six-figures working for Fox or CNN today, if you want.
I'm a colored single mother on food stamps, you know I can't afford a Humvee.
I love you so much. <3
8)
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 08, 2013, 04:58:09 PM
I sometimes wonder whether people decide I'm a welfare queen when I pull my food card out of my Coach purse to pay for my organic beans and milk at Whole Foods.
I wonder, does getting divorced and having your business tank mean that you have to give away all your nice things and replace them with shit from Target?
No, it means you are required to sell them for like $80, use that for food and go without things like purses at ALL. Carry your shit in a paper bag, bitch.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 08:55:15 AM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 08:43:03 AM
Dude, working as a measure of a person's worth is so ingrained in our society (and also being poor sucks and it's not like welfare is paying anyone the big bucks) that I doubt there are many people who are gaming the system.
If not outright "gaming", I'm willing to definitely state there are those who get WAAAY more than is really...I guess, fair?
For instance, I spend about $75 monthly on groceries (for myself) and essentially eat prepackaged shit all day every day because its what I afford.
In the same instance, a friend of mine recieves $200 in food stamps monthly for himself, and has his fridge decked out with steak and fancy cakes and all sorts of other top-shelf shit I can't afford.
I guess I can follow you in blaming my employer for not paying me enough, but its this sort of thing that gets me pissed on the whole welfare issue everytime. Essentially, I see myself working hard to eat shit, while my buddy gets to eat like a king for nothing...
ZOMG A POOR PERSON WITH STEAK LET'S CUT FOOD STAMPS
You stated yourself that you spend about $75 a WEEK on crap food. Do you think that guy eats like that EVERY DAY on food stamps? Food stamps buy food for a couple of WEEKS. They're not DESIGNED to last all month unless you live on beans (work-based "safety net" in a country with not enough poverty wage jobs to go around) and after a couple of hungry weeks, people have a tendency to treat themselves.
You sound like one of those people who thinks the "deserving poor" need to be dressed in filthy rags or they're "scamming the system".
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 08, 2013, 05:11:00 PM
Quote from: V3X on April 08, 2013, 05:04:34 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 08, 2013, 04:58:09 PM
I sometimes wonder whether people decide I'm a welfare queen when I pull my food card out of my Coach purse to pay for my organic beans and milk at Whole Foods.
I wonder, does getting divorced and having your business tank mean that you have to give away all your nice things and replace them with shit from Target?
a ) Personally, I would not make that assessment of you. I'd be likely to chalk it up to "I have no idea where that came from but clearly someone at the DES who knows some verified facts believes this person needs assistance so who am I to judge?"
b ) I actually prefer "shit from Target" to "nice things," but that's just me.
I don't like shit from Target because
A. most of it is made in China and I prefer not to support slave labor, and
B. it wears out fast which means you have to buy MORE slave-made shit.
My purse cost $300, but I doubt I'll ever have to buy a new one. Which is good, because I loathe shopping and I also really hate replacing things.
Of course, some Coach is now made in China, and that means I never WILL buy a new Coach, regardless.
Not to mention that their new designs are hideously ostentatious and I would never in a million years walk around with something that has its brand on the OUTSIDE. I don't understand that. It's super trashy.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 08, 2013, 05:15:36 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 08, 2013, 05:11:00 PM
Quote from: V3X on April 08, 2013, 05:04:34 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 08, 2013, 04:58:09 PM
I sometimes wonder whether people decide I'm a welfare queen when I pull my food card out of my Coach purse to pay for my organic beans and milk at Whole Foods.
I wonder, does getting divorced and having your business tank mean that you have to give away all your nice things and replace them with shit from Target?
a ) Personally, I would not make that assessment of you. I'd be likely to chalk it up to "I have no idea where that came from but clearly someone at the DES who knows some verified facts believes this person needs assistance so who am I to judge?"
b ) I actually prefer "shit from Target" to "nice things," but that's just me.
I don't like shit from Target because
A. most of it is made in China and I prefer not to support slave labor, and
B. it wears out fast which means you have to buy MORE slave-made shit.
My purse cost $300, but I doubt I'll ever have to buy a new one. Which is good, because I loathe shopping and I also really hate replacing things.
Of course, some Coach is now made in China, and that means I never WILL buy a new Coach, regardless.
Not to mention that their new designs are hideously ostentatious and I would never in a million years walk around with something that has its brand on the OUTSIDE. I don't understand that. It's super trashy.
Yes, I won't wear South Pole for that reason. It's like Minnie Pearl wearing a hat with a price tag. Even HEE HAW knew that was fucked up.
Quote from: stelz on April 08, 2013, 05:13:23 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 08:55:15 AM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 08:43:03 AM
Dude, working as a measure of a person's worth is so ingrained in our society (and also being poor sucks and it's not like welfare is paying anyone the big bucks) that I doubt there are many people who are gaming the system.
If not outright "gaming", I'm willing to definitely state there are those who get WAAAY more than is really...I guess, fair?
For instance, I spend about $75 monthly on groceries (for myself) and essentially eat prepackaged shit all day every day because its what I afford.
In the same instance, a friend of mine recieves $200 in food stamps monthly for himself, and has his fridge decked out with steak and fancy cakes and all sorts of other top-shelf shit I can't afford.
I guess I can follow you in blaming my employer for not paying me enough, but its this sort of thing that gets me pissed on the whole welfare issue everytime. Essentially, I see myself working hard to eat shit, while my buddy gets to eat like a king for nothing...
ZOMG A POOR PERSON WITH STEAK LET'S CUT FOOD STAMPS
You stated yourself that you spend about $75 a WEEK on crap food. Do you think that guy eats like that EVERY DAY on food stamps? Food stamps buy food for a couple of WEEKS. They're not DESIGNED to last all month unless you live on beans (work-based "safety net" in a country with not enough poverty wage jobs to go around) and after a couple of hungry weeks, people have a tendency to treat themselves.
You sound like one of those people who thinks the "deserving poor" need to be dressed in filthy rags or they're "scamming the system".
He claimed $75/month, which I am going to state with a fair degree of certainty is a gross underestimation. For one thing, he's married, which means that he shares meals with his wife and can't really just sort out how much he pays for groceries. For another, I bet he eats out, and isn't counting restaurant/fast food/snack totals into his food expenses.
You can live on $75/month if you live on beans and rice and onions, but if you eat subsidized processed foods you're not looking at less than $3/day, and that's a severe malnourishment diet.
So, yeah. Budgetwise that just doesn't work out. HE alone might spent $75/month at the grocery store, but that isn't all he eats.
I get just under $400/month for five people, and I buy steak sometimes, too. If it's on sale for anywhere under $4/lb I stock up and throw a bunch of it in the freezer. Cook it up and serve it with rice and broccoli, the kids love it and will actually, you know, not get FUCKING RICKETS.
I buy whole salmons when they go on sale, too.
Also, dumbfuck needs to learn to cook, that processed shit isn't food. I wouldn't feed that to my dogs, let alone my kids.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 08, 2013, 05:26:30 PM
I get just under $400/month for five people, and I buy steak sometimes, too. If it's on sale for anywhere under $4/lb I stock up and throw a bunch of it in the freezer. Cook it up and serve it with rice and broccoli, the kids love it and will actually, you know, not get FUCKING RICKETS.
I buy whole salmons when they go on sale, too.
Also, dumbfuck needs to learn to cook, that processed shit isn't food. I wouldn't feed that to my dogs, let alone my kids.
THIS.
Also, produce, by nature, can't stay on the shelf very long. They mark that shit down ALL THE TIME.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 05:38:05 AM
Sounds fair roger.
Ill concede that you're correct that I've not sought help directly...
Regardless, I'm interested in your definition of entitlement...
Regardless, sleep well
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,34409.msg1251383.html#new
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 04:56:12 PM
Just from a factual angle, I'm not sure that's why, Roger - more like, historically, poor people have had less access to birth control. The birth rates around here have dropped a hell of a lot since the economy went to shit and since universal access to birth control (actually, thanks, Obama!) the abortion rate has been halved.
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Populations.html
But never mind that. Obvious, it's all about condoms and the pill. Which is why the same behavior is demonstrated in rats.
http://www.methuen.k12.ma.us/mnmelan/AP%20Ch%2047.htm
The obvious inference is that rats use condoms.
You make 1520 a month, and only spend 75 on groceries?
What do you do with the rest of it?
Von Zwietracht (just to add to the posts you'll need to read),
did you actually look at that thread I linked you to? Because you should have. It's pretty much four years worth of condensed financial news there, about how people far richer than you or I will ever be, are being given billions in handouts, avoiding taxes and even being granted effective immunity for major crimes.
On the first page you would have learnt that an estimated 45% of the world's wealth was destroyed during the financial crisis.
And here is an article (http://antifascist-calling.blogspot.com/2013/04/toothless-federal-reserve-enforcement.html) that was published just yesterday:
QuoteBut in the wake of rising public anger over the Obama administration's collusion with Wall Street drug banks, we were informed by The New York Times that the "Federal Reserve hit Citigroup with an enforcement action on Tuesday over breakdowns in money laundering controls that threatened to allow tainted money to move through the United States."
According to the Times, the Federal Reserve "took aim at Citigroup and its subsidiary Banamex USA over failure to monitor cash transactions for potentially suspicious activity."
The Fed's Consent Order charged that Citigroup and Banamex USA "lacked effective systems of governance and internal controls to adequately oversee the activities of the Banks with respect to legal, compliance, and reputational risk related to the Banks' respective BSA/AML [Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering] compliance programs."
An unnamed bank spokeswoman told the Times, "Citi has made substantial progress in a comprehensive manner across products, business lines and geographies," and will continue "to take the appropriate steps to address remaining requirements and build a strong and sustainable program."
Nothing to see here, right?
Tellingly however, neither Citigroup nor Banamex USA admitted wrongdoing. In what is standard boilerplate in such agreements, the Fed meekly submitted that their "enforcement action" was issued "without this Order constituting an admission or denial by Citigroup of any allegation made or implied by the Board of Governors." Nor did the Fed "give specific examples of problems" at either bank, Reuters reported.
During Senate Banking Committee hearings last month, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) grilled federal banking regulators over their non-prosecution of Wall Street drug banks.
Referencing penalties levied against HSBC after the British banking giant was caught red-handed laundering billions of dollars for Colombian and Mexican drug cartels, Warren demanded: "What does it take? How many billions of dollars do you have to launder for drug lords" before a criminal prosecution?
Judging by the actions of Obama's Justice Department, apparently the sky's the limit.
But if history is any guide to current Citigroup "lapses," you can bet that the bank's balance sheet is awash with dirty money.
As a prelude to the Federal Reserve's Consent Order, last April the Office of the Currency (OCC) issued a cease-and-desist order charging Citigroup with "deficiencies in its BSA/AML compliance program."
OCC regulators stated that the bank had "failed to adopt and implement a compliance program that adequately covers the required BSA/AML program elements due to an inadequate system of internal controls and ineffective independent testing."
According to OCC, Citigroup "did not develop adequate due diligence on foreign correspondent bank customers and failed to file Suspicious Activity Reports ('SARs') related to its remote deposit capture/international cash letter instrument activity in a timely manner."
In their infinite wisdom, the Federal Reserve did not include fines against the bank, but the Board of Governors hastened to assure Citigroup's masters (their future employers?) that the Consent Order was issued "solely for the purpose of settling this matter without a formal proceeding being filed and without the necessity for protracted or extended hearings or testimony."
You bet it was!
Citigroup and Banamex: The Salinas Affair
If all this sounds familiar, it should.
One of the more infamous cases involving taxpayer bailed-out Citigroup's ties to money laundering drug cartels emerged in the late 1990s when Raúl Salinas de Gortari, the brother of former Mexican President Carlos Salinas, was arrested after his wife, Paulina Castañón, attempted to withdraw $84 million from a Swiss account controlled by Raúl under an alias.
Salinas, who spent ten years in prison over the murder of his brother-in-law, political rival José Francisco Ruiz, was released in 2005 when a Mexican appeals court overturned that conviction.
After nearly 13 years of legal proceedings into the origins of the Salinas fortune, SwissInfo reported that "Switzerland will hand over $74 million (SFr77.3 million) to Mexico from bank accounts linked to the brother of a former Mexican president."
"The funds--more than $110 million in bank accounts linked to Raúl Salinas--were originally frozen after the Swiss authorities initiated criminal proceedings against Salinas in 1995 for money laundering."
But as Narco News investigative journalist Al Giordano reported back in 2000, "The Chief Operating Officers of drug trafficking are not Mexicans, nor Colombians: they are US and European bankers, those who launder the illicit proceeds of drug trafficking. Institutions like Citibank of New York--as this report documents--are the true beneficiaries of the prohibition on drugs and its illegal profits."
Are you starting to understand? You're worried about crackheads, while Citigroup (and HSBC, and Wells Fargo, and many others) are getting rich off the drug trade itself, not getting prosecuted for it, and then getting government handouts.
Incidentally, a piss test at the offices of any of the one above banks in New York itself would probably show greater levels of cocaine and amphetamine use that entire inner city areas of the US. And that's just going by the insider stories.
But those are hard targets, Cain.
The poor generally criticize those who are even poorer than themselves. It's not only easy, but it gives them a sense that at least they're not on the absolute bottom, which seems to be Von Z's primary concern.
Much in the way that criminals tend to prey on the poor.
That would, of course, include the bankers you mention.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 10:15:57 PM
I guess I'm just frustrated at seeing my cash:hours worked ratio DROP as I work longer hours due to taxation.
And how much of that taxation is due to poor people, as opposed to TARP and the military industrial complex?
QuoteIt just kinda frustrates me. I guess I rationalise my hatred for welfare systems on the false assumption that "killing the worthless poor" would make my paycheck bigger.
Getting rid of them would make your purchasing power drop, not rise.
QuoteI'll still hold true to the fact that, as it stands, I don't really benefit from government.
No, you are merely so spoiled that you can no longer even see the benefits you gain.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 10:31:16 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 07, 2013, 10:25:25 PM
A child. Fine. That explains a lot.
Are we going to move beyond this, or can I have an equally valid point to make in saying:
"A statist. Fine. That explains a lot."
Wait. Hold on just a moment.
Are you suggesting that corporatism in today's world
isn't statism? REALLY?
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 08:42:21 PM
When you start on about the drug testing things, though, you totally lose me. How is this oppression against "the poor"?
Because the drug tests cost $600/person/month. That's $600 per person per month that is either A) coming out of NEW taxes, or B) Coming out of the money available for assistance.
Which do you think is most likely? If you picked A, you're out of your fucking tree. If you picked B, then your question is answered.
Also, who stands to gain from that provision?
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 09:37:27 PM
In this case, I'll be reneging my statement concerning not wishing to spend my meager earnings on "crackheads" and turn that directly into "I don't want to spend on anyone but myself".
I hear Somalia doesn't have all these horrible taxes on people.
You should give it a try. You can be just as sociopathic as you like.
Quote from: Six Feet of Sole on April 07, 2013, 10:34:16 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 10:31:16 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 07, 2013, 10:25:25 PM
A child. Fine. That explains a lot.
Are we going to move beyond this, or can I have an equally valid point to make in saying:
"A statist. Fine. That explains a lot."
Ooh!
I'm enjoying this discussion very much.
:lol:
Figured you would.
Anything for payback, right? Anything at all.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 11:39:11 PM
I'll be brutally honest in saying that I was attacked by a group of 7 or so african americans and this resulted in my being injured so bad that I wasn't able to complete college, or even walk for about a year. So, yes, due to some unresolved PTSD, I do hold some subconscious racism.
Unless you're suggesting that 7 people make up the entire population of non-White America, this is crap.
Quote
I'd like to resolve those issues, though...it's hard to find materials related to deconditioning racist tendancies, though, since the whole notion of the "white male racist" is so criminalised...
Wow. That's some high-quality whining.
Sorry, kid, it's not illegal to be a white male racist. Nor, however, is it illegal to laugh at white male racists. Or any kind of racist.
I wonder when he's going to get up the balls to reply again instead of obsessively reading the thread.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 07:31:21 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 08:42:21 PM
When you start on about the drug testing things, though, you totally lose me. How is this oppression against "the poor"?
Because the drug tests cost $600/person/month. That's $600 per person per month that is either A) coming out of NEW taxes, or B) Coming out of the money available for assistance.
Which do you think is most likely? If you picked A, you're out of your fucking tree. If you picked B, then your question is answered.
Also, who stands to gain from that provision?
To add to this, the answer is B with a little A thrown in.
This is how the manufacture of a new cash-cow happens. Testing recipients isn't about morality or preventing addicts from using "handouts" to maintain their addictions. That's a lie. If that were true, we wouldn't have cities all over the country going forward, trying to push TANF drug-testing programs despite the numbers that prove less than 2% are popping positive.
This is about Quest Diagnostics getting a big check made up of
your taxes. This is about local governments getting a thumb in the pie and the associated favors. Push the legislation, get it passed and the NEW taxes will follow.
They're taking more and more from
you to pour it into a negative-sum game. If you can't see that, you aren't looking very hard.
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 08, 2013, 08:13:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 07:31:21 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 07, 2013, 08:42:21 PM
When you start on about the drug testing things, though, you totally lose me. How is this oppression against "the poor"?
Because the drug tests cost $600/person/month. That's $600 per person per month that is either A) coming out of NEW taxes, or B) Coming out of the money available for assistance.
Which do you think is most likely? If you picked A, you're out of your fucking tree. If you picked B, then your question is answered.
Also, who stands to gain from that provision?
To add to this, the answer is B with a little A thrown in.
This is how the manufacture of a new cash-cow happens. Testing recipients isn't about morality or preventing addicts from using "handouts" to maintain their addictions. That's a lie. If that were true, we wouldn't have cities all over the country going forward, trying to push TANF drug-testing programs despite the numbers that prove less than 2% are popping positive.
This is about Quest Diagnostics getting a big check made up of your taxes. This is about local governments getting a thumb in the pie and the associated favors. Push the legislation, get it passed and the NEW taxes will follow.
They're taking more and more from you to pour it into a negative-sum game. If you can't see that, you aren't looking very hard.
Naw. The cow is there, it's just a question of who gets the prime rib. New taxes aren't popular. Fucking poor people is.
So the assistance money gets "diverted" (I love that word) from the people who need it, to the manufacturers of the drug testing kits.
And I think one hand lathers the other. Once we're all lubed up and accept drug testing as the norm, the less there is to go 'round of the assistance money because it's going to pay the labs, the easier it is to rile up the opposition to collect MORE taxes to pump up the assistance programs because the portion the needy actually see is inadequate. Nobody goes back and says "Wait a minute now, let's audit the money that's already IN there." because the neocons don't want testing to go away and the liberals don't DARE.
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 08, 2013, 08:28:12 PM
And I think one hand lathers the other. Once we're all lubed up and accept drug testing as the norm, the less there is to go 'round of the assistance money because it's going to pay the labs, the easier it is to rile up the opposition to collect MORE taxes to pump up the assistance programs because the portion the needy actually see is inadequate. Nobody goes back and says "Wait a minute now, let's audit the money that's already IN there." because the neocons don't want testing to go away and the liberals don't DARE.
I think you're seriously underestimating the level of evil involved here.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 08:32:17 PM
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 08, 2013, 08:28:12 PM
And I think one hand lathers the other. Once we're all lubed up and accept drug testing as the norm, the less there is to go 'round of the assistance money because it's going to pay the labs, the easier it is to rile up the opposition to collect MORE taxes to pump up the assistance programs because the portion the needy actually see is inadequate. Nobody goes back and says "Wait a minute now, let's audit the money that's already IN there." because the neocons don't want testing to go away and the liberals don't DARE.
I think you're seriously underestimating the level of evil involved here.
Yep.
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 08, 2013, 07:48:11 PM
I wonder when he's going to get up the balls to reply again instead of obsessively reading the thread.
I think he's getting a recharge of "EVIL LIBERAL JOOOZ" at the other sites he mentioned.
Even Popeye needed spinach every once in a while.
"When yer butt just cant stop hurtin,
Blame Joos, koons and wermen,
VZ the entitled "Man""
I've argued the drug testing thing with a few people who are in favor of it so far and although it probably actually WILL lead to people's benefits being reduced the fact that it CAN lead to more taxes is an important part of the conversation. If you can get the person who doesn't want to help poor people buy drugs to realize that there is a definite possibility he's going to be paying more taxes to make sure that no welfare money goes to drugs then he's less likely to push the position as aggressively. It also means that he has to actually embrace the "take grandma's grocery money to pay to drug test" position which is morally difficult for most people. Of course most cling to "it'll save us money" and screech.
I do have that tendency.
Quote from: stelz on April 08, 2013, 08:37:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 08:32:17 PM
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 08, 2013, 08:28:12 PM
And I think one hand lathers the other. Once we're all lubed up and accept drug testing as the norm, the less there is to go 'round of the assistance money because it's going to pay the labs, the easier it is to rile up the opposition to collect MORE taxes to pump up the assistance programs because the portion the needy actually see is inadequate. Nobody goes back and says "Wait a minute now, let's audit the money that's already IN there." because the neocons don't want testing to go away and the liberals don't DARE.
I think you're seriously underestimating the level of evil involved here.
Yep.
Youuu Tooo, huh?
A note on taxes as "the great equalizer":
In society, there is people with all types of privilege that has been accumulated thru the generations, be it through hard work, being predatory upon others, or pure blind luck (take a guess at which ones are more prevalent, a little bit of history can make this clearer).
We all use highways, healthcare, and all types of infrastructure (electricity, water, gas, judicial system, etc)... even if not right now at some point in our lives we WILL, thus, we all have to chip into the costs of it. Shared use = shared cost.
"But i make so much more money than the average peon and i would rather pay for this things privately! I dont want no leeches on me!"... No, you will never make enough money to pay for your own roads to every single place you decide to go...
There is also the matter of human dignity... people should not have to die in the streets from hunger, or from an illness they couldnt pay for, everyone should have the right for a decent education.
There are far too many people that work harder than you and me that struggle to bring bread to the table... we might provide a specialized skill that is valued more, but that only came from years of experience, or merely because of the privilege of education... there is also trust-fund babies that havent lifted a single finger in their lives to do anything productive.
Inequality, privilege, taxes and basic human decency are intrinsically inmeshed.
And no, privatization is not the answer, that is simply a way to overcharge for services so that a huge part of the population is excluded from them, for things that should be accesible for everyone and paid for collectively.
P.S. Didnt know if to post it here, on Entitlement thread or made a new thread, but whatever.
Quote from: Pergamos on April 08, 2013, 08:50:03 PM
I've argued the drug testing thing with a few people who are in favor of it so far and although it probably actually WILL lead to people's benefits being reduced the fact that it CAN lead to more taxes is an important part of the conversation. If you can get the person who doesn't want to help poor people buy drugs to realize that there is a definite possibility he's going to be paying more taxes to make sure that no welfare money goes to drugs then he's less likely to push the position as aggressively. It also means that he has to actually embrace the "take grandma's grocery money to pay to drug test" position which is morally difficult for most people. Of course most cling to "it'll save us money" and screech.
This baffles me. It's been shown to always cost more, fuck people over and help no one. Especially the sectors it is actually trying to help. Is it a perception thing? Like it
should save money and help filthy addicts?
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 08, 2013, 08:55:34 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on April 08, 2013, 08:50:03 PM
I've argued the drug testing thing with a few people who are in favor of it so far and although it probably actually WILL lead to people's benefits being reduced the fact that it CAN lead to more taxes is an important part of the conversation. If you can get the person who doesn't want to help poor people buy drugs to realize that there is a definite possibility he's going to be paying more taxes to make sure that no welfare money goes to drugs then he's less likely to push the position as aggressively. It also means that he has to actually embrace the "take grandma's grocery money to pay to drug test" position which is morally difficult for most people. Of course most cling to "it'll save us money" and screech.
This baffles me. It's been shown to always cost more, fuck people over and help no one. Especially the sectors it is actually trying to help. Is it a perception thing? Like it should save money and help filthy addicts?
I believe that is exactly what it is. No mater how many times you post the published data showing the opposite people cling to the idea that it will save money. They don't want it to help filthy addicts though, those people need to be punished.
I think it's mostly a I-hate-the-dirty-poor thing. America doesn't treat her poor very well. We've got a very Protestant notion that if you're poor, it's your own fault and god hates you. And so we don't really think about them as real people.
The guys in charge know this.
Look: we live in two different worlds: Those on the bottom cling to morality and ideals because they're important and sometimes, they're all ya got.
The top-feeders aren't even oriented that way. This is about "What can we get and how can we get the most?"
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 08:58:38 PM
I think it's mostly a I-hate-the-dirty-poor thing. America doesn't treat her poor very well. We've got a very Protestant notion that if you're poor, it's your own fault and god hates you. And so we don't really think about them as real people.
Everyone that I have heard taking this position is poor. Some of them are even currently on benefits.
Quote from: Pergamos on April 08, 2013, 08:59:56 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 08:58:38 PM
I think it's mostly a I-hate-the-dirty-poor thing. America doesn't treat her poor very well. We've got a very Protestant notion that if you're poor, it's your own fault and god hates you. And so we don't really think about them as real people.
Everyone that I have heard taking this position is poor. Some of them are even currently on benefits.
Do you think they're immune to absorbing classism? And how many of them are white? (most people on welfare are white, so I'm gonna take a shot in the dark and say most) Remember what I said about racism and classism being linked?
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 08:58:38 PM
I think it's mostly a I-hate-the-dirty-poor thing. America doesn't treat her poor very well. We've got a very Protestant notion that if you're poor, it's your own fault and god hates you. And so we don't really think about them as real people.
Some of it's that and some of it is that there are people who are genuinely well-meaning but misled. And then, there are some that look at their ever-shrinking pile and instead of fighting the Colossus with all the purse-strings, they snarl at the hungry critters at the edges and guard the bowl.
Quote from: Pergamos on April 08, 2013, 08:59:56 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 08:58:38 PM
I think it's mostly a I-hate-the-dirty-poor thing. America doesn't treat her poor very well. We've got a very Protestant notion that if you're poor, it's your own fault and god hates you. And so we don't really think about them as real people.
Everyone that I have heard taking this position is poor. Some of them are even currently on benefits.
Wow. "Hate thy neighbour" I guess. He's a filthy addict bastard. Best cut off my nose to spite his spoon.
Quote from: Pergamos on April 08, 2013, 08:59:56 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 08:58:38 PM
I think it's mostly a I-hate-the-dirty-poor thing. America doesn't treat her poor very well. We've got a very Protestant notion that if you're poor, it's your own fault and god hates you. And so we don't really think about them as real people.
Everyone that I have heard taking this position is poor. Some of them are even currently on benefits.
I have a cousin who goes on and on about it (he's all for it). He is on disability because of brain damage he suffered as an infant.
I don't know how to approach that. :sad:
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 08, 2013, 09:02:26 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 08:58:38 PM
I think it's mostly a I-hate-the-dirty-poor thing. America doesn't treat her poor very well. We've got a very Protestant notion that if you're poor, it's your own fault and god hates you. And so we don't really think about them as real people.
Some of it's that and some of it is that there are people who are genuinely well-meaning but misled. And then, there are some that look at their ever-shrinking pile and instead of fighting the Colossus with all the purse-strings, they snarl at the hungry critters at the edges and guard the bowl.
Like VZ, yes, in the last case. And it's classism they use to explain it (just as much as it's the fuel for the need to guard the bowl).
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 08, 2013, 09:04:12 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on April 08, 2013, 08:59:56 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 08:58:38 PM
I think it's mostly a I-hate-the-dirty-poor thing. America doesn't treat her poor very well. We've got a very Protestant notion that if you're poor, it's your own fault and god hates you. And so we don't really think about them as real people.
Everyone that I have heard taking this position is poor. Some of them are even currently on benefits.
I have a cousin who goes on and on about it (he's all for it). He is on disability because of brain damage he suffered as an infant.
I don't know how to approach that. :sad:
Yeah, I have some of the same feelings. My Tea Bagger Step Dad is on disability for lupus and he's alllll about cutting benefits. What.
After reading the replies to this thread, I can say that there is absolutely nothing resembling credibility concerning the way I now view the opinions of the persons who made reply to me.
Certainly their were logical arguments here and there, but when I literally got told the most stereotypical liberal trope (one I wished had only been a simple stereotype) -- check your privilege -- I couldn't help but stop reading, and begin to promptly laugh until I shit my pants with the throbbing force of 1000 moons.
When the thread started speaking of racism, classism, sexism and then began making implications leaning towards steering the argument towards birth control, again, another 1000 moons of shit pulsed forth from my now-bleeding asshole at the sheer hilarity of what I was reading. Bonus points when someone piped up and assumed that Glenn Beck was someone I look up to.
Between taking quote out of context and the rabble of screams for the death of this poor, redneck, racist, CIS-scum, I can't help but laugh at how terribly accurate the stereotypes concerning liberal thinkers are.
Anyway, to make mention of the BIP...
Even years ago when I was still the dirty pot-smoking, wealth redistributing, welfare queen faggot, the BIP literally came off as nothing but a pale, gloom and doom, post-modern garbagecan-rehash of a little yellow book written by a stoned, schizophrenic hippy, and a slightly autistic UNIX programmer, who denounced the whole shitstain he'd created in the end anyway.
As for you Nigel, if you were paying as much in taxes as you claim (and no doubt these figures are true), then I can aptly say that the disparity of wealth between myself and you at the time of your prime, is such that in your failure and subsequent poverty, the old me would have been the one revelling in the fall of "just another rich fuck". Current CIS-scum capitalist me sees your use of the welfare system as a positive use of the system...the me that would have agreed with this thread sees it as just desserts for making more money than myself and my compatriots.
Anyway, I hope great prosperity in the future arguements of the whole lot of you. Perhaps one day, when by winning, you tax my working class ass back into the underclasses, you can marvel at the fact that you'll be paying for my food, taking care of my ails, and providing me housing...regardless of intellectually deformed or unworthy of your assistance you may deem me. You will be financing the existance of pure scum that is nothing but an ideological and fiscal drain on society...and this is what you get in WINNING your argument!
Oh boy.
This is going to be hilarious.
And for the record you entitled little fuck, you never bothered to give my input more than a passing glance.
Fuck you. Enjoy driving on the roads "YOUR CORPORATION" paid for because you're just another screaming clown.
Ah that's better.
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 08, 2013, 09:12:09 PM
Oh boy.
This is going to be hilarious.
Yeah, I think we've got a live one. :lulz:
Shit: meet fan.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 09:10:19 PM
After reading the replies to this thread, I can say that there is absolutely nothing resembling credibility concerning the way I now view the opinions of the persons who made reply to me.
Certainly their were logical arguments here and there, but when I literally got told the most stereotypical liberal trope (one I wished had only been a simple stereotype) -- check your privilege -- I couldn't help but stop reading, and begin to promptly laugh until I shit my pants with the throbbing force of 1000 moons.
]
That was my first response to the privilege thing, months ago (check the threads, they were BRUTAL both ways). Thing is, I spent some time thinking and reevaluating.
Quote
When the thread started speaking of racism, classism, sexism and then began making implications leaning towards steering the argument towards birth control, again, another 1000 moons of shit pulsed forth from my now-bleeding asshole at the sheer hilarity of what I was reading.
You sort of initiated that, dude.
Quote
Between taking quote out of context and the rabble of screams for the death of this poor, redneck, racist, CIS-scum, I can't help but laugh at how terribly accurate the stereotypes concerning liberal thinkers are.
Confirmation bias is a bitch. For example, I am not a liberal, at least not as the word is used today.
QuoteAnyway, I hope great prosperity in the future arguements of the whole lot of you. Perhaps one day, when by winning, you tax my working class ass back into the underclasses, you can marvel at the fact that you'll be paying for my food, taking care of my ails, and providing me housing...regardless of intellectually deformed or unworthy of your assistance you may deem me. You will be financing the existance of pure scum that is nothing but an ideological and fiscal drain on society...and this is what you get in WINNING your argument!
I am distressed to see that I was right about you. Have fun at your tea party.
As I have said elsewhere, America runs on Butthurt. It's our fuel.
Hell hath no fury like a white cishet man with his feelings hurt. :lulz:
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 09:19:32 PM
Hell hath no fury like a white cishet man with his feelings hurt. :lulz:
:kingmeh:
Yes, we CIS types can be like that. We're so flighty and emotional, you know.
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 08, 2013, 09:16:34 PM
And for the record you entitled little fuck, you never bothered to give my input more than a passing glance.
Fuck you. Enjoy driving on the roads "YOUR CORPORATION" paid for because you're just another screaming clown.
Ah that's better.
This board's definition of entitlement is pants-on-head retarded. Your whole position that the poor should get some sort of assistance is literally the definition of entitlement...look anywhere that isn't PD for that definition, and you'll see that you're the entitled fuck.
And I will enjoy driving on my company's roads...because so long as my company is profitable enough to maintain those roads, I'll have a motivation to form a voluntary association with them.
Also, fuck you librul joo, imma go fuck mah sister, drink sum beer and watch nascar now, k?
Im a non-partisan foreigner, so i suppose that makes me a "bleeding heart liburrul" for disagreeing with your prejudices. :lulz:
Quote from: The Johnny on April 08, 2013, 09:23:39 PM
Im a non-partisan foreigner, so i suppose that makes me a "bleeding heart liburrul" for disagreeing with your prejudices. :lulz:
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 09:21:06 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 09:19:32 PM
Hell hath no fury like a white cishet man with his feelings hurt. :lulz:
:kingmeh:
Yes, we CIS types can be like that. We're so flighty and emotional, you know.
People who are privileged have a tendency to respond with knee jerk anger-fueled denial when confronted with their own privilege. The more privileged they are, the angrier and more virulent the denial, and white cishet men are the tip top of the heirarchy. This is simply my observation based on my reading and discussions. Like, VZ is absolutely typical.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 09:21:44 PM
This board's definition of entitlement is pants-on-head retarded.
Look, I wrote out that huge explanation of the definition of privilege and entitlement, and you didn't even fucking read it, let alone comment on it. So fuck off back to your teabagger buddies.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 09:21:44 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 08, 2013, 09:16:34 PM
And for the record you entitled little fuck, you never bothered to give my input more than a passing glance.
Fuck you. Enjoy driving on the roads "YOUR CORPORATION" paid for because you're just another screaming clown.
Ah that's better.
This board's definition of entitlement is pants-on-head retarded. Your whole position that the poor should get some sort of assistance is literally the definition of entitlement...look anywhere that isn't PD for that definition, and you'll see that you're the entitled fuck.
And I will enjoy driving on my company's roads...because so long as my company is profitable enough to maintain those roads, I'll have a motivation to form a voluntary association with them.
Also, fuck you librul joo, imma go fuck mah sister, drink sum beer and watch nascar now, k?
Child, you won't leave here until your arse is red raw. But do enlighten me, why is the definition retarded?
Do you think your corporation will choose to voluntarly associate with you for long? You seem to offer nothing to the table. Why are you worth anything, let alone 9.50 again?
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 09:21:44 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 08, 2013, 09:16:34 PM
And for the record you entitled little fuck, you never bothered to give my input more than a passing glance.
Fuck you. Enjoy driving on the roads "YOUR CORPORATION" paid for because you're just another screaming clown.
Ah that's better.
This board's definition of entitlement is pants-on-head retarded. Your whole position that the poor should get some sort of assistance is literally the definition of entitlement...look anywhere that isn't PD for that definition, and you'll see that you're the entitled fuck.
And I will enjoy driving on my company's roads...because so long as my company is profitable enough to maintain those roads, I'll have a motivation to form a voluntary association with them.
Also, fuck you librul joo, imma go fuck mah sister, drink sum beer and watch nascar now, k?
Right on. Continue enjoying the hyper-rich fucking you over, no kiss, no KY.
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 09:27:09 PM
People who are privileged have a tendency to respond with knee jerk anger-fueled denial when confronted with their own privilege.
Yes. I have noticed that.
And I thank you for lumping me and every other CIS person in with that, for expressing your contempt of everything we are, simply by virtue of being CIS.
There is zero difference between your comment and some po'bucker going off about "faggots".
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 09:28:25 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 09:21:44 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 08, 2013, 09:16:34 PM
And for the record you entitled little fuck, you never bothered to give my input more than a passing glance.
Fuck you. Enjoy driving on the roads "YOUR CORPORATION" paid for because you're just another screaming clown.
Ah that's better.
This board's definition of entitlement is pants-on-head retarded. Your whole position that the poor should get some sort of assistance is literally the definition of entitlement...look anywhere that isn't PD for that definition, and you'll see that you're the entitled fuck.
And I will enjoy driving on my company's roads...because so long as my company is profitable enough to maintain those roads, I'll have a motivation to form a voluntary association with them.
Also, fuck you librul joo, imma go fuck mah sister, drink sum beer and watch nascar now, k?
Right on. Continue enjoying the hyper-rich fucking you over, no kiss, no KY.
If he supports them enough, they'll let him join the club.
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 08, 2013, 09:27:36 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 09:21:44 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 08, 2013, 09:16:34 PM
And for the record you entitled little fuck, you never bothered to give my input more than a passing glance.
Fuck you. Enjoy driving on the roads "YOUR CORPORATION" paid for because you're just another screaming clown.
Ah that's better.
This board's definition of entitlement is pants-on-head retarded. Your whole position that the poor should get some sort of assistance is literally the definition of entitlement...look anywhere that isn't PD for that definition, and you'll see that you're the entitled fuck.
And I will enjoy driving on my company's roads...because so long as my company is profitable enough to maintain those roads, I'll have a motivation to form a voluntary association with them.
Also, fuck you librul joo, imma go fuck mah sister, drink sum beer and watch nascar now, k?
Child, you won't leave here until your arse is red raw. But do enlighten me, why is the definition retarded?
Do you think your corporation will choose to voluntarly associate with you for long? You seem to offer nothing to the table. Why are you worth anything, let alone 9.50 again?
Well, I'm worth my wage because the company has need of what I do. I'm unconcerned with how long they choose to maintain that association; the market for my job is actually quite under-saturated and there are positions available from a plethora of companies offering the same type of work.
In other words, I'm not worried about the company losing interest in me because I work in a job that has high demand
You are in high demand and unable to negotiate a higher paying job.
By definition you are clearly a fucking idiot.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 09:29:12 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 09:27:09 PM
People who are privileged have a tendency to respond with knee jerk anger-fueled denial when confronted with their own privilege.
Yes. I have noticed that.
And I thank you for lumping me and every other CIS person in with that, for expressing your contempt of everything we are, simply by virtue of being CIS.
There is zero difference between your comment and some po'bucker going off about "faggots".
The infighting is almost as realistic as in DooM...
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 09:31:43 PM
In other words, I'm not worried about the company losing interest in me because I work in a job that has high demand
Clearly. It's in such high demand that you get $9.50/hour for it.
Well done, O hero of the marketplace!
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 09:10:19 PM
As for you Nigel, if you were paying as much in taxes as you claim (and no doubt these figures are true), then I can aptly say that the disparity of wealth between myself and you at the time of your prime, is such that in your failure and subsequent poverty, the old me would have been the one revelling in the fall of "just another rich fuck". Current CIS-scum capitalist me sees your use of the welfare system as a positive use of the system...the me that would have agreed with this thread sees it as just desserts for making more money than myself and my compatriots.
Dude, stop now.
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 08, 2013, 09:32:50 PM
You are in high demand and unable to negotiate a higher paying job.
By definition you are clearly a fucking idiot.
Although I'm angry at the fact that I don't have much money, TBH, for the work I do, I feel I'm compensated fairly...if not excessively
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 09:01:27 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on April 08, 2013, 08:59:56 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 08:58:38 PM
I think it's mostly a I-hate-the-dirty-poor thing. America doesn't treat her poor very well. We've got a very Protestant notion that if you're poor, it's your own fault and god hates you. And so we don't really think about them as real people.
Everyone that I have heard taking this position is poor. Some of them are even currently on benefits.
Do you think they're immune to absorbing classism? And how many of them are white? (most people on welfare are white, so I'm gonna take a shot in the dark and say most) Remember what I said about racism and classism being linked?
They're all white. I don't think it is racism, since when they talk about people who they know spend their benefit on drugs the people they are talking about are also white.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 09:33:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 09:29:12 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 09:27:09 PM
People who are privileged have a tendency to respond with knee jerk anger-fueled denial when confronted with their own privilege.
Yes. I have noticed that.
And I thank you for lumping me and every other CIS person in with that, for expressing your contempt of everything we are, simply by virtue of being CIS.
There is zero difference between your comment and some po'bucker going off about "faggots".
The infighting is almost as realistic as in DooM...
Sorry. We don't all agree about everything here.
And your implication of dishonesty fits the butthurt nature of the rest of your replies. Eat a dick.
I honestly can't believe I spent 2 hours on that reply/thread to you. I am a moron for falling for your troll. You win, sir.
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 08, 2013, 09:34:07 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 09:10:19 PM
As for you Nigel, if you were paying as much in taxes as you claim (and no doubt these figures are true), then I can aptly say that the disparity of wealth between myself and you at the time of your prime, is such that in your failure and subsequent poverty, the old me would have been the one revelling in the fall of "just another rich fuck". Current CIS-scum capitalist me sees your use of the welfare system as a positive use of the system...the me that would have agreed with this thread sees it as just desserts for making more money than myself and my compatriots.
Dude, stop now.
Um, he was never serious. You do see that, right?
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 08, 2013, 09:02:26 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 08:58:38 PM
I think it's mostly a I-hate-the-dirty-poor thing. America doesn't treat her poor very well. We've got a very Protestant notion that if you're poor, it's your own fault and god hates you. And so we don't really think about them as real people.
Some of it's that and some of it is that there are people who are genuinely well-meaning but misled. And then, there are some that look at their ever-shrinking pile and instead of fighting the Colossus with all the purse-strings, they snarl at the hungry critters at the edges and guard the bowl.
This seems like one of the main motivations to me. The idea that by cutting off the drug users they'll get more. That's why it is important to keep reiterating that it costs more to test, and that means they'll get less.
To the rest of the PDers:
I TOLD YOU SO.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 09:34:12 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 08, 2013, 09:32:50 PM
You are in high demand and unable to negotiate a higher paying job.
By definition you are clearly a fucking idiot.
Although I'm angry at the fact that I don't have much money, TBH, for the work I do, I feel I'm compensated fairly...if not excessively
Yet your alleged barrier to solving all your problems (Mo Money) is easily breakable.
You are a fucking idiot. This level of retardation has got to be a fucking troll.
You should hate yourself. You really should. If I was able to easily improve EVERY ASPECT OF MY EXISTENCE easily with a new job which are apparently abundant in your obviously highly skilled field at 21.
Look forward to a lucrative future of fucking nothing. When you get to 30 and you're still in the same job, with the same 9.50 you'll remember this.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 09:35:33 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 09:33:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 09:29:12 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 09:27:09 PM
People who are privileged have a tendency to respond with knee jerk anger-fueled denial when confronted with their own privilege.
Yes. I have noticed that.
And I thank you for lumping me and every other CIS person in with that, for expressing your contempt of everything we are, simply by virtue of being CIS.
There is zero difference between your comment and some po'bucker going off about "faggots".
The infighting is almost as realistic as in DooM...
Sorry. We don't all agree about everything here.
And your implication of dishonesty fits the butthurt nature of the rest of your replies. Eat a dick.
I honestly can't believe I spent 2 hours on that reply/thread to you. I am a moron for falling for your troll. You win, sir.
Awww, dude, I was just trying to lighten the mood. I know PD doesn't agree with itself constantly...it wouldnt be a discordian forum if it were all about concordant opinion.
And to be honest, man, you won equally as well as I did. I've been exposed to new view points, had a good long slugfest on the internet, and pissed out some stress by waging a
good debate violent argument. I've absorbed some inkling of idealism from you guys, so other than the incessant annoyance I may be posing, the whole exercise should be seen as positive...
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 09:37:18 PM
To the rest of the PDers:
I TOLD YOU SO.
But without this how will we fill the void that the drug thread's slowdown has left in our life?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 09:29:12 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 09:27:09 PM
People who are privileged have a tendency to respond with knee jerk anger-fueled denial when confronted with their own privilege.
Yes. I have noticed that.
And I thank you for lumping me and every other CIS person in with that, for expressing your contempt of everything we are, simply by virtue of being CIS.
There is zero difference between your comment and some po'bucker going off about "faggots".
FFS, Roger. I apologized for that comment months ago and meant it. I don't have any contempt for people who are cisgender, just because they're cis. It's a thing, just like being trans* is. Nor am I lumping anyone, and my comment is very much different than his. Mine was a comment about a typical reaction in this situation by a non-biped like him, and his was, well, a typical non-biped response.
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 08, 2013, 09:39:24 PM
This level of retardation has got to be a fucking troll.
Ding.
My guess is he's either:
1. The latest version of Memnoch. Not the same guy, but the same thing, or
2. Posting from the university Starbuck's with Daddy's Amex.
In either case, he's proven that he's not worth the time it takes to discuss things. Just point and laugh. Just another worthless teabagger lining up to suck the Koch bro's dicks.
How is it that you are held back by paying payroll taxes? If you had kept the 2.5% of your income that you pay in those taxes (which exist solely to give you personally some benefits in retirement, by the way), would you be wealthy? No, you'd be in pretty much the same shape you're in now. Therefore, the entire notion that your "wealth" is being "drained" by people leeching from the "Government teet" is flat-out preposterous.
The largest part of your "wealth" is not drawn off in taxes (payroll taxes -- again -- which are not even income taxes). The portion of your wealth that you are missing never shows up in your gross pay in the first place, because your wages are kept artificially low by people who are busy getting filthy fucking rich off of the work you do.
I don't know which company you work for, but if the CEO of your company makes more than ten times your salary, then he is the one leeching off of you -- not the fucking children who would starve to death without the benefits provided by TAXES THAT YOU'RE NOT EVEN FUCKING PAYING.
Quote from: The Johnny on April 08, 2013, 09:23:39 PM
Im a non-partisan foreigner, so i suppose that makes me a "bleeding heart liburrul" for disagreeing with your prejudices. :lulz:
Hush, you're a dirty Mexican, you just want to steal his job.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 09:40:35 PM
Awww, dude, I was just trying to lighten the mood. I know PD doesn't agree with itself constantly...it wouldnt be a discordian forum if it were all about concordant opinion.
And to be honest, man, you won equally as well as I did. I've been exposed to new view points, had a good long slugfest on the internet, and pissed out some stress by waging a good debate violent argument. I've absorbed some inkling of idealism from you guys, so other than the incessant annoyance I may be posing, the whole exercise should be seen as positive...
I wrote the shit out of a thread to respond to you. You didn't even read it, and ran straight to appeal to ridicule.
Fuck you. Right in the earhole. I will never take you seriously again.
Good day, sir.
Quote from: V3X on April 08, 2013, 09:42:57 PM
How is it that you are held back by paying payroll taxes? If you had kept the 2.5% of your income that you pay in those taxes (which exist solely to give you personally some benefits in retirement, by the way), would you be wealthy? No, you'd be in pretty much the same shape you're in now. Therefore, the entire notion that your "wealth" is being "drained" by people leeching from the "Government teet" is flat-out preposterous.
The largest part of your "wealth" is not drawn off in taxes (payroll taxes -- again -- which are not even income taxes). The portion of your wealth that you are missing never shows up in your gross pay in the first place, because your wages are kept artificially low by people who are busy getting filthy fucking rich off of the work you do.
I don't know which company you work for, but if the CEO of your company makes more than ten times your salary, then he is the one leeching off of you -- not the fucking children who would starve to death without the benefits provided by TAXES THAT YOU'RE NOT EVEN FUCKING PAYING.
Hello.
"Troll."
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on April 08, 2013, 09:40:46 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 09:37:18 PM
To the rest of the PDers:
I TOLD YOU SO.
But without this how will we fill the void that the drug thread's slowdown has left in our life?
I just wanted to remind everyone that I fucking called it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 09:43:20 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 09:40:35 PM
Awww, dude, I was just trying to lighten the mood. I know PD doesn't agree with itself constantly...it wouldnt be a discordian forum if it were all about concordant opinion.
And to be honest, man, you won equally as well as I did. I've been exposed to new view points, had a good long slugfest on the internet, and pissed out some stress by waging a good debate violent argument. I've absorbed some inkling of idealism from you guys, so other than the incessant annoyance I may be posing, the whole exercise should be seen as positive...
I wrote the shit out of a thread to respond to you. You didn't even read it, and ran straight to appeal to ridicule.
Fuck you. Right in the earhole. I will never take you seriously again.
Good day, sir.
I stopped taking you seriously six months ago after reading your material on totse...
Oh boy.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 09:44:56 PM
I just wanted to remind everyone that I fucking called it.
You should get cookies for your reward. Weaponized cookies.
Actually, I think Alty was the first to call out the randroid....
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 09:41:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 09:29:12 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 09:27:09 PM
People who are privileged have a tendency to respond with knee jerk anger-fueled denial when confronted with their own privilege.
Yes. I have noticed that.
And I thank you for lumping me and every other CIS person in with that, for expressing your contempt of everything we are, simply by virtue of being CIS.
There is zero difference between your comment and some po'bucker going off about "faggots".
FFS, Roger. I apologized for that comment months ago and meant it. I don't have any contempt for people who are cisgender, just because they're cis. It's a thing, just like being trans* is. Nor am I lumping anyone, and my comment is very much different than his. Mine was a comment about a typical reaction in this situation by a non-biped like him, and his was, well, a typical non-biped response.
1. No, you never actually apologized, IIRC. You gave reasons why it was okay. I could be wrong, but that's how I remember it.
2. You just did it again. You just fucking did. So how is the apology that may have happened valid?
3. You didn't identify him as a non-biped, you identified him as CIS. Unless that is now a functional definition of a non-biped.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 09:45:24 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 09:43:20 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 09:40:35 PM
Awww, dude, I was just trying to lighten the mood. I know PD doesn't agree with itself constantly...it wouldnt be a discordian forum if it were all about concordant opinion.
And to be honest, man, you won equally as well as I did. I've been exposed to new view points, had a good long slugfest on the internet, and pissed out some stress by waging a good debate violent argument. I've absorbed some inkling of idealism from you guys, so other than the incessant annoyance I may be posing, the whole exercise should be seen as positive...
I wrote the shit out of a thread to respond to you. You didn't even read it, and ran straight to appeal to ridicule.
Fuck you. Right in the earhole. I will never take you seriously again.
Good day, sir.
I stopped taking you seriously six months ago after reading your material on totse...
What the fuck are you talking about?
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 09:45:24 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 09:43:20 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 09:40:35 PM
Awww, dude, I was just trying to lighten the mood. I know PD doesn't agree with itself constantly...it wouldnt be a discordian forum if it were all about concordant opinion.
And to be honest, man, you won equally as well as I did. I've been exposed to new view points, had a good long slugfest on the internet, and pissed out some stress by waging a good debate violent argument. I've absorbed some inkling of idealism from you guys, so other than the incessant annoyance I may be posing, the whole exercise should be seen as positive...
I wrote the shit out of a thread to respond to you. You didn't even read it, and ran straight to appeal to ridicule.
Fuck you. Right in the earhole. I will never take you seriously again.
Good day, sir.
I stopped taking you seriously six months ago after reading your material on totse...
Totse has been down for years, and my material was never there.
Totse2, though? That explains everything. Have fun sucking Fang's dick, DEC14.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 09:45:24 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 09:43:20 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 09:40:35 PM
Awww, dude, I was just trying to lighten the mood. I know PD doesn't agree with itself constantly...it wouldnt be a discordian forum if it were all about concordant opinion.
And to be honest, man, you won equally as well as I did. I've been exposed to new view points, had a good long slugfest on the internet, and pissed out some stress by waging a good debate violent argument. I've absorbed some inkling of idealism from you guys, so other than the incessant annoyance I may be posing, the whole exercise should be seen as positive...
I wrote the shit out of a thread to respond to you. You didn't even read it, and ran straight to appeal to ridicule.
Fuck you. Right in the earhole. I will never take you seriously again.
Good day, sir.
I stopped taking you seriously six months ago after reading your material on totse...
I note again a lack of reply to my fine points. You could have just SHUT UP and READ SOME SHIT and you might have actually learned something.
Now fuck off Troll.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 09:33:59 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 09:31:43 PM
In other words, I'm not worried about the company losing interest in me because I work in a job that has high demand
Clearly. It's in such high demand that you get $9.50/hour for it.
Well done, O hero of the marketplace!
This is the crux of what we're trying to show you here. You say you work in a "high-demand" position. I don't refute that yet because I, myself work in a "high-demand" field and get paid just over squat.
So what's driving our wages? What determines our buying power? It certainly
isn't that I failed to "get off my ass, get and education and some experience and work hard."
Let me tell you about me: I'm a US Navy Veteran. I've worked since I was 14 or 15 and had to get a "working card" to be allowed. Before I left for the Navy, I was an assistant manager of a retail establishment because I'd worked hard enough to earn my way up. When I got out, I worked in the Financial District in NYC, just steps from the NYSE. Then, I went on to work various Executive-Level Assistant positions and Office Managerial positions.
I have found, over the years, the wages offered for my skills dropping lower and lower. Not just staying stagnant but dropping. I'm a smart girl so I went back to school.
I work in EMS. It's a field that requires a college education. Non-degreed at my current level but I'm moving on to the degreed, Paramedic level. I am an Advanced EMT. It is the middle-rank in EMS--not the bottom. I make $10/hour.
I make ten dollars an hour in an industry where people are getting FAT at the top of the food chain. My people have a very integral hand in keeping the dollar-signs flowing for equipment and supplies that cost between 400-900% more than it does for the same shit in other countries where my peers have more buying power.
So what's broken here? Is it me? Am I just not bright enough or educated enough or motivated enough?
Something else is driving this shit. It ain't you and it ain't me.
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 08, 2013, 09:49:22 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 09:33:59 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 09:31:43 PM
In other words, I'm not worried about the company losing interest in me because I work in a job that has high demand
Clearly. It's in such high demand that you get $9.50/hour for it.
Well done, O hero of the marketplace!
This is the crux of what we're trying to show you here. You say you work in a "high-demand" position. I don't refute that yet because I, myself work in a "high-demand" field and get paid just over squat.
So what's driving our wages? What determines our buying power? It certainly isn't that I failed to "get off my ass, get and education and some experience and work hard."
Let me tell you about me: I'm a US Navy Veteran. I've worked since I was 14 or 15 and had to get a "working card" to be allowed. Before I left for the Navy, I was an assistant manager of a retail establishment because I'd worked hard enough to earn my way up. When I got out, I worked in the Financial District in NYC, just steps from the NYSE. Then, I went on to work various Executive-Level Assistant positions and Office Managerial positions.
I have found, over the years, the wages offered for my skills dropping lower and lower. Not just staying stagnant but dropping. I'm a smart girl so I went back to school.
I work in EMS. It's a field that requires a college education. Non-degreed at my current level but I'm moving on to the degreed, Paramedic level. I am an Advanced EMT. It is the middle-rank in EMS--not the bottom. I make $10/hour.
I make ten dollars an hour in an industry where people are getting FAT at the top of the food chain. My people have a very integral hand in keeping the dollar-signs flowing for equipment and supplies that cost between 400-900% more than it does for the same shit in other countries where my peers have more buying power.
So what's broken here? Is it me? Am I just not bright enough or educated enough or motivated enough?
Something else is driving this shit. It ain't you and it ain't me.
PLEASE NOTE:
You are typing out long responses to DEC14.
Just so you know.
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 08, 2013, 09:48:58 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 09:45:24 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 09:43:20 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 09:40:35 PM
Awww, dude, I was just trying to lighten the mood. I know PD doesn't agree with itself constantly...it wouldnt be a discordian forum if it were all about concordant opinion.
And to be honest, man, you won equally as well as I did. I've been exposed to new view points, had a good long slugfest on the internet, and pissed out some stress by waging a good debate violent argument. I've absorbed some inkling of idealism from you guys, so other than the incessant annoyance I may be posing, the whole exercise should be seen as positive...
I wrote the shit out of a thread to respond to you. You didn't even read it, and ran straight to appeal to ridicule.
Fuck you. Right in the earhole. I will never take you seriously again.
Good day, sir.
I stopped taking you seriously six months ago after reading your material on totse...
I note again a lack of reply to my fine points. You could have just SHUT UP and READ SOME SHIT and you might have actually learned something.
Now fuck off Troll.
You are talking to DEC14. You are giving him precisely what he is after.
I'm going to run his IP tonight. Then one of his two accounts goes away.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 09:50:23 PM
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 08, 2013, 09:49:22 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 09:33:59 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 09:31:43 PM
In other words, I'm not worried about the company losing interest in me because I work in a job that has high demand
Clearly. It's in such high demand that you get $9.50/hour for it.
Well done, O hero of the marketplace!
This is the crux of what we're trying to show you here. You say you work in a "high-demand" position. I don't refute that yet because I, myself work in a "high-demand" field and get paid just over squat.
So what's driving our wages? What determines our buying power? It certainly isn't that I failed to "get off my ass, get and education and some experience and work hard."
Let me tell you about me: I'm a US Navy Veteran. I've worked since I was 14 or 15 and had to get a "working card" to be allowed. Before I left for the Navy, I was an assistant manager of a retail establishment because I'd worked hard enough to earn my way up. When I got out, I worked in the Financial District in NYC, just steps from the NYSE. Then, I went on to work various Executive-Level Assistant positions and Office Managerial positions.
I have found, over the years, the wages offered for my skills dropping lower and lower. Not just staying stagnant but dropping. I'm a smart girl so I went back to school.
I work in EMS. It's a field that requires a college education. Non-degreed at my current level but I'm moving on to the degreed, Paramedic level. I am an Advanced EMT. It is the middle-rank in EMS--not the bottom. I make $10/hour.
I make ten dollars an hour in an industry where people are getting FAT at the top of the food chain. My people have a very integral hand in keeping the dollar-signs flowing for equipment and supplies that cost between 400-900% more than it does for the same shit in other countries where my peers have more buying power.
So what's broken here? Is it me? Am I just not bright enough or educated enough or motivated enough?
Something else is driving this shit. It ain't you and it ain't me.
PLEASE NOTE:
You are typing out long responses to DEC14.
Just so you know.
I don't actually know who that even is. Perhaps looking into my post history, registration date, etc could dispell this notion that I'm some sock puppet of some old nemesis of yours...or not.
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 08, 2013, 09:49:22 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 09:33:59 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 09:31:43 PM
In other words, I'm not worried about the company losing interest in me because I work in a job that has high demand
Clearly. It's in such high demand that you get $9.50/hour for it.
Well done, O hero of the marketplace!
This is the crux of what we're trying to show you here. You say you work in a "high-demand" position. I don't refute that yet because I, myself work in a "high-demand" field and get paid just over squat.
So what's driving our wages? What determines our buying power? It certainly isn't that I failed to "get off my ass, get and education and some experience and work hard."
Let me tell you about me: I'm a US Navy Veteran. I've worked since I was 14 or 15 and had to get a "working card" to be allowed. Before I left for the Navy, I was an assistant manager of a retail establishment because I'd worked hard enough to earn my way up. When I got out, I worked in the Financial District in NYC, just steps from the NYSE. Then, I went on to work various Executive-Level Assistant positions and Office Managerial positions.
I have found, over the years, the wages offered for my skills dropping lower and lower. Not just staying stagnant but dropping. I'm a smart girl so I went back to school.
I work in EMS. It's a field that requires a college education. Non-degreed at my current level but I'm moving on to the degreed, Paramedic level. I am an Advanced EMT. It is the middle-rank in EMS--not the bottom. I make $10/hour.
I make ten dollars an hour in an industry where people are getting FAT at the top of the food chain. My people have a very integral hand in keeping the dollar-signs flowing for equipment and supplies that cost between 400-900% more than it does for the same shit in other countries where my peers have more buying power.
So what's broken here? Is it me? Am I just not bright enough or educated enough or motivated enough?
Something else is driving this shit. It ain't you and it ain't me.
I agree with you...wholly...
interestingly I are doing a vid for my friend's transgender awareness project on being cisgender.
As in non-trans.
As in there being an opposite to gay, being straight.
Didn't I plot a crappy graph about that in one of the threads that kicked this off?
I'm kind of looking forward to helping her with her project, because she came out as trans* to me recently and i've known her for 10+ years. I'm also considering helping with a few things that as a cis person I don't have to worry about that a trans person does.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 09:53:04 PM
I don't actually know who that even is. Perhaps looking into my post history, registration date, etc could dispell this notion that I'm some sock puppet of some old nemesis of yours...or not.
Too late now, guy. You jumped the shark with the Totse comment.
Okay, so you agree wholly. Care to expound?
Thread is now arsebiscuits.
Have fun being trolled.
TGRR,
Out
Quote from: Pixie on April 08, 2013, 09:58:49 PM
interestingly I are doing a vid for my friend's transgender awareness project on being cisgender.
As in non-trans.
As in there being an opposite to gay, being straight.
Didn't I plot a crappy graph about that in one of the threads that kicked this off?
I'm kind of looking forward to helping her with her project, because she came out as trans* to me recently and i've known her for 10+ years. I'm also considering helping with a few things that as a cis person I don't have to worry about that a trans person does.
What's with putting an asterix after the word trans?
Quote from: Pergamos on April 08, 2013, 10:06:51 PM
Quote from: Pixie on April 08, 2013, 09:58:49 PM
interestingly I are doing a vid for my friend's transgender awareness project on being cisgender.
As in non-trans.
As in there being an opposite to gay, being straight.
Didn't I plot a crappy graph about that in one of the threads that kicked this off?
I'm kind of looking forward to helping her with her project, because she came out as trans* to me recently and i've known her for 10+ years. I'm also considering helping with a few things that as a cis person I don't have to worry about that a trans person does.
What's with putting an asterix after the word trans?
The jargon has to change every once in a while, so you can tell who the noobs are.
That's my guess, anyway.
it's kind of an umbrella term way of covering transsexual and transgender, as they aren't the same thing, and you get all the non-binary gender fluid agender folks in too.
Habit I picked up from my adventures with trans* activists.
(http://media.tumblr.com/b30b721d8c4e8f1ad4a34f68fe8f8b90/tumblr_inline_mjvzr2MBqZ1qz4rgp.gif)
The asterisk in trans* serves the same purpose it does in a search, because it's a very complicated set of identities - there's an unlimited number of not-cis identities that fall under the label (transssexuals, male-to-female, female-to-male, non-binary, genderqueer, third gender, etc.). You can say "trans*" without excluding anyone.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 09:46:59 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 09:41:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 09:29:12 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 09:27:09 PM
People who are privileged have a tendency to respond with knee jerk anger-fueled denial when confronted with their own privilege.
Yes. I have noticed that.
And I thank you for lumping me and every other CIS person in with that, for expressing your contempt of everything we are, simply by virtue of being CIS.
There is zero difference between your comment and some po'bucker going off about "faggots".
FFS, Roger. I apologized for that comment months ago and meant it. I don't have any contempt for people who are cisgender, just because they're cis. It's a thing, just like being trans* is. Nor am I lumping anyone, and my comment is very much different than his. Mine was a comment about a typical reaction in this situation by a non-biped like him, and his was, well, a typical non-biped response.
1. No, you never actually apologized, IIRC. You gave reasons why it was okay. I could be wrong, but that's how I remember it.
2. You just did it again. You just fucking did. So how is the apology that may have happened valid?
3. You didn't identify him as a non-biped, you identified him as CIS. Unless that is now a functional definition of a non-biped.
1. I did actually apologize and meant it. Should I go dig up the thread?
2. I feel like we should have a discussion about the minority complaining about the majority. (should I have used it in that instance? No. But I don't begrudge minorities, whatever they are (racial, gender, etc.) the right to complain about the system (of white supremacy/patriarchy/etc.) that oppresses them. They're getting with with rocks and complaining about the institution of whiteness/manhood/etc. is hollering)
3. I assumed, because you have used cisgendered yourself, in the entitlement and privilege thread, and because I know you get this whole privilege thing, that would be fairly obvious what I meant (specifically, a certain kind of white cishet man, which PD is mostly not populated by, VZ/DEC14 aside). My mistake. Next time, I'll be clearer.
Quote from: Pixie on April 08, 2013, 09:58:49 PM
interestingly I are doing a vid for my friend's transgender awareness project on being cisgender.
As in non-trans.
As in there being an opposite to gay, being straight.
Didn't I plot a crappy graph about that in one of the threads that kicked this off?
I'm kind of looking forward to helping her with her project, because she came out as trans* to me recently and i've known her for 10+ years. I'm also considering helping with a few things that as a cis person I don't have to worry about that a trans person does.
Trans-mission? Me, too. I'm explaining the gender binary and then non-binary identities (such as is possible, lol).
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 09:45:24 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 09:43:20 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 09:40:35 PM
Awww, dude, I was just trying to lighten the mood. I know PD doesn't agree with itself constantly...it wouldnt be a discordian forum if it were all about concordant opinion.
And to be honest, man, you won equally as well as I did. I've been exposed to new view points, had a good long slugfest on the internet, and pissed out some stress by waging a good debate violent argument. I've absorbed some inkling of idealism from you guys, so other than the incessant annoyance I may be posing, the whole exercise should be seen as positive...
I wrote the shit out of a thread to respond to you. You didn't even read it, and ran straight to appeal to ridicule.
Fuck you. Right in the earhole. I will never take you seriously again.
Good day, sir.
I stopped taking you seriously six months ago after reading your material on totse...
Ah, a totsetard. It all adds up now.
Benefit of doubt long fucking gone.
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 10:16:07 PM
2. I feel like we should have a discussion about the minority complaining about the majority. (should I have used it in that instance? No. But I don't begrudge minorities, whatever they are (racial, gender, etc.) the right to complain about the system (of white supremacy/patriarchy/etc.) that oppresses them. They're getting with with rocks and complaining about the institution of whiteness/manhood/etc. is hollering)
I can see now why you hate the word "allies".
It's like a lightbulb went on.
Anyway, you work on minorities getting back at The Man. Do have fun. FTS,YOYO.
yup. Lisa is mah old and very good friend.
I also have mod powerz on the Trans-mission page, so I knew about you being involved, it's just it's Lisa's pet project and all so i left it up to her to sort out,
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 10:16:07 PM
The asterisk in trans* serves the same purpose it does in a search, because it's a very complicated set of identities - there's an unlimited number of not-cis identities that fall under the label (transssexuals, male-to-female, female-to-male, non-binary, genderqueer, third gender, etc.). You can say "trans*" without excluding anyone.
Gotcha, so it's adopting computerspeak. I kept looking at the bottom of the post for an elaboration since usually an asterix means there is a footnote.
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 10:16:07 PM
3. I assumed, because you have used cisgendered yourself, in the entitlement and privilege thread, and because I know you get this whole privilege thing, that would be fairly obvious what I meant (specifically, a certain kind of white cishet man, which PD is mostly not populated by,
Did that sound okay to you when you wrote it?
Because it sounds like "There's Blacks and there's niggers". You could have just said "asshole" and left the CIS thing out of it.
Or maybe you couldn't.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 10:25:38 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 10:16:07 PM
2. I feel like we should have a discussion about the minority complaining about the majority. (should I have used it in that instance? No. But I don't begrudge minorities, whatever they are (racial, gender, etc.) the right to complain about the system (of white supremacy/patriarchy/etc.) that oppresses them. They're getting with with rocks and complaining about the institution of whiteness/manhood/etc. is hollering)
I can see now why you hate the word "allies".
It's like a lightbulb went on.
Anyway, you work on minorities getting back at The Man. Do have fun. FTS,YOYO.
No, I am not wild about certain kinds of people who claim it because they do it as if saying "I'm for equal marriage!" makes them an exceptional person who deserves cookies, instead of a person who meets the basic criteria for a decent human being.
Look, the system destroys the lives of the underprivileged. It oppresses and kills and rapes them. They have every right to resent the system. To penalize the people who vent about those issues is to ignore the fact that the people who benefit from the system (whatever intersection of race, class, gender, etc.) don't face those issues. We've already gone over what those issues are, so I won't beat a dead horse and repeat them, but it is still a fact that a member of privileged group A becoming upset when underprivileged group A complains about them as a group is making the issues about them as a person.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 10:30:02 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 10:16:07 PM
3. I assumed, because you have used cisgendered yourself, in the entitlement and privilege thread, and because I know you get this whole privilege thing, that would be fairly obvious what I meant (specifically, a certain kind of white cishet man, which PD is mostly not populated by,
Did that sound okay to you when you wrote it?
Because it sounds like "There's Blacks and there's niggers". You could have just said "asshole" and left the CIS thing out of it.
Or maybe you couldn't.
Oh my god, Roger, no, it's not. Ugh. When I have my actual laptop out, instead of my tablet, I'll respond properly, but good lord, they are totally different. Privilege, dude.
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 10:36:05 PM
No, I am not wild about certain kinds of people who claim it because they do it as if saying "I'm for equal marriage!" makes them an exceptional person who deserves cookies, instead of a person who meets the basic criteria for a decent human being.
Some people might do it out of principle. But don't let that stand in the way of your contempt.
Quote
Look, the system destroys the lives of the underprivileged. It oppresses and kills and rapes them. They have every right to resent the system. To penalize the people who vent about those issues is to ignore the fact that the people who benefit from the system (whatever intersection of race, class, gender, etc.) don't face those issues. We've already gone over what those issues are, so I won't beat a dead horse and repeat them, but it is still a fact that a member of privileged group A becoming upset when underprivileged group A complains about them as a group is making the issues about them as a person.
The obvious answer, of course, is to drive away anyone who is interested in helping with passive bigotry, so that you can continue to be the very, very special rebel, tirelessly fighting the powers that be...Solo. Far more dramatic that way.
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 10:39:14 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 10:30:02 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 10:16:07 PM
3. I assumed, because you have used cisgendered yourself, in the entitlement and privilege thread, and because I know you get this whole privilege thing, that would be fairly obvious what I meant (specifically, a certain kind of white cishet man, which PD is mostly not populated by,
Did that sound okay to you when you wrote it?
Because it sounds like "There's Blacks and there's niggers". You could have just said "asshole" and left the CIS thing out of it.
Or maybe you couldn't.
Oh my god, Roger, no, it's not. Ugh. When I have my actual laptop out, instead of my tablet, I'll respond properly, but good lord, they are totally different. Privilege, dude.
Fuck you, the two situations are IDENTICAL. So take your "privilege" shut-down comment and shove it up your arse. The fact that *I* may have privilege you don't have does NOT give *you* an excuse to make bigoted fucking statements.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 10:46:10 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 10:39:14 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 10:30:02 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 10:16:07 PM
3. I assumed, because you have used cisgendered yourself, in the entitlement and privilege thread, and because I know you get this whole privilege thing, that would be fairly obvious what I meant (specifically, a certain kind of white cishet man, which PD is mostly not populated by,
Did that sound okay to you when you wrote it?
Because it sounds like "There's Blacks and there's niggers". You could have just said "asshole" and left the CIS thing out of it.
Or maybe you couldn't.
Oh my god, Roger, no, it's not. Ugh. When I have my actual laptop out, instead of my tablet, I'll respond properly, but good lord, they are totally different. Privilege, dude.
Fuck you, the two situations are IDENTICAL. So take your "privilege" shut down comment and shove it up your arse.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
check ur privilege CIS-scum
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 10:50:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 10:46:10 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 10:39:14 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 10:30:02 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 10:16:07 PM
3. I assumed, because you have used cisgendered yourself, in the entitlement and privilege thread, and because I know you get this whole privilege thing, that would be fairly obvious what I meant (specifically, a certain kind of white cishet man, which PD is mostly not populated by,
Did that sound okay to you when you wrote it?
Because it sounds like "There's Blacks and there's niggers". You could have just said "asshole" and left the CIS thing out of it.
Or maybe you couldn't.
Oh my god, Roger, no, it's not. Ugh. When I have my actual laptop out, instead of my tablet, I'll respond properly, but good lord, they are totally different. Privilege, dude.
Fuck you, the two situations are IDENTICAL. So take your "privilege" shut down comment and shove it up your arse.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
check ur privilege CIS-scum
And fuck you, too. I thought you were heading back to 4Chan?
A plague on both your houses. You and Juana. You're both fucked in the head.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 10:52:08 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 10:50:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 10:46:10 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 10:39:14 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 10:30:02 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 10:16:07 PM
3. I assumed, because you have used cisgendered yourself, in the entitlement and privilege thread, and because I know you get this whole privilege thing, that would be fairly obvious what I meant (specifically, a certain kind of white cishet man, which PD is mostly not populated by,
Did that sound okay to you when you wrote it?
Because it sounds like "There's Blacks and there's niggers". You could have just said "asshole" and left the CIS thing out of it.
Or maybe you couldn't.
Oh my god, Roger, no, it's not. Ugh. When I have my actual laptop out, instead of my tablet, I'll respond properly, but good lord, they are totally different. Privilege, dude.
Fuck you, the two situations are IDENTICAL. So take your "privilege" shut down comment and shove it up your arse.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
check ur privilege CIS-scum
And fuck you, too. I thought you were heading back to 4Chan?
A plague on both your houses. You and Juana. You're both fucked in the head.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Tabbed browsing bro...I'm back at 4chan AND on PD.
And to your plague on my house, I raise you a curse upon all the vaettir in the land to be doomed to wander about with blue balls until you are forced to...
...check ur privilege
It turns out, Von DEC14, that I am not forced to choose between bigot A and bigot B.
"Roger", they ask me, "Why do you hate everyone?"
I'd say the reasons are perfectly fucking obvious. If I had MY way, all of you pigfuckers would be handed over to body perverts with your thumbs wired together.
Jackasses.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 10:56:34 PM
It turns out, Von DEC14, that I am not forced to choose between bigot A and bigot B.
oh snap.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 10:59:17 PM
"Roger", they ask me, "Why do you hate everyone?"
I'd say the reasons are perfectly fucking obvious. If I had MY way, all of you pigfuckers would be handed over to body perverts with your thumbs wired together.
Jackasses.
You don't hate everyone roger...you simply hate those who diametrically oppose you. Most people tend towards such...it's the nature of the screaming primate brain that resides within the skull of each and every one of us...
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 11:03:15 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 10:59:17 PM
"Roger", they ask me, "Why do you hate everyone?"
I'd say the reasons are perfectly fucking obvious. If I had MY way, all of you pigfuckers would be handed over to body perverts with your thumbs wired together.
Jackasses.
You don't hate everyone roger...you simply hate those who diametrically oppose you. Most people tend towards such...it's the nature of the screaming primate brain that resides within the skull of each and every one of us...
No, no, I've know me for more than 4 decades, and I'm pretty sure I hate everyone. Every last one of you stinking primates.
You see, this is why I'm not an atheist...God KNOWS I hate people, and he put me on a planet with 7.3 billion of you fuckers. Wall to wall, nut-to-butt screeching fuckers who say I have to choose between RED and BLUE or maybe CONSERVATIVE and LIBERAL or whatever other fucking neat little round holes have been arranged for our square arses to be pounded into.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I just checked my privilege, and I'm a quart low. I have to roll around in a pile of filthy lucre for a few minutes, and maybe get out of a speeding ticket on account of White middle class male, if you know what I mean. And I think you do.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 11:07:20 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 11:03:15 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 10:59:17 PM
"Roger", they ask me, "Why do you hate everyone?"
I'd say the reasons are perfectly fucking obvious. If I had MY way, all of you pigfuckers would be handed over to body perverts with your thumbs wired together.
Jackasses.
You don't hate everyone roger...you simply hate those who diametrically oppose you. Most people tend towards such...it's the nature of the screaming primate brain that resides within the skull of each and every one of us...
No, no, I've know me for more than 4 decades, and I'm pretty sure I hate everyone. Every last one of you stinking primates.
You see, this is why I'm not an atheist...God KNOWS I hate people, and he put me on a planet with 7.3 billion of you fuckers. Wall to wall, nut-to-butt screeching fuckers who say I have to choose between RED and BLUE or maybe CONSERVATIVE and LIBERAL or whatever other fucking neat little round holes have been arranged for our square arses to be pounded into.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I just checked my privilege, and I'm a quart low. I have to roll around in a pile of filthy lucre for a few minutes, and maybe get out of a speeding ticket on account of White middle class male, if you know what I mean. And I think you do.
I don't know what you mean. Since coming to the age of majority, I've been a good little law abiding citezen. I don't use my white privilege to dodge speeding tickets because I don't speed...
Pfft! Driving the speed limit is for squares man.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 10:46:10 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 10:39:14 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 10:30:02 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 10:16:07 PM
3. I assumed, because you have used cisgendered yourself, in the entitlement and privilege thread, and because I know you get this whole privilege thing, that would be fairly obvious what I meant (specifically, a certain kind of white cishet man, which PD is mostly not populated by,
Did that sound okay to you when you wrote it?
Because it sounds like "There's Blacks and there's niggers". You could have just said "asshole" and left the CIS thing out of it.
Or maybe you couldn't.
Oh my god, Roger, no, it's not. Ugh. When I have my actual laptop out, instead of my tablet, I'll respond properly, but good lord, they are totally different. Privilege, dude.
Fuck you, the two situations are IDENTICAL. So take your "privilege" shut-down comment and shove it up your arse. The fact that *I* may have privilege you don't have does NOT give *you* an excuse to make bigoted fucking statements.
Roger, they are so far away from identical, they're not even on the same planet.
I wasn't going to post this one, because the dude is, hmm, a little angrier than I think is possibly constructive and perhaps a little dismissive of cishets, but I think it's pretty apt, since this is now about cis-ness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zr1KOGQh5Lg
FTR, I don't find cishets/straight people annoying until they prove to be annoying as individual people. I also think you're conflating anger at the system and with the institutions with anger at individuals. The only time I'm angry with an individual - and I don't think I'm unique - is when that person behaves as part of the system.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 10:45:22 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 10:36:05 PM
No, I am not wild about certain kinds of people who claim it because they do it as if saying "I'm for equal marriage!" makes them an exceptional person who deserves cookies, instead of a person who meets the basic criteria for a decent human being.
Some people might do it out of principle. But don't let that stand in the way of your contempt.
Quote
Look, the system destroys the lives of the underprivileged. It oppresses and kills and rapes them. They have every right to resent the system. To penalize the people who vent about those issues is to ignore the fact that the people who benefit from the system (whatever intersection of race, class, gender, etc.) don't face those issues. We've already gone over what those issues are, so I won't beat a dead horse and repeat them, but it is still a fact that a member of privileged group A becoming upset when underprivileged group A complains about them as a group is making the issues about them as a person.
The obvious answer, of course, is to drive away anyone who is interested in helping with passive bigotry, so that you can continue to be the very, very special rebel, tirelessly fighting the powers that be...Solo. Far more dramatic that way.
We had this debate and I'm not interested in rehashing it.
Quote from: Six Feet of Sole on April 08, 2013, 11:15:24 PM
Pfft! Driving the speed limit is for squares man.
b-b-but is it really so fun? I mean, they wouldn't make fun things illegal would they?
I guess I'll have to try it...like roger says, I gots plenty of white privilege to get out of the ticket anyway.
Going to my shit-tier oppressive wage job that exploits my labour for 2 jews and a mexican's profits will be so much more bearable going 88 miles an hour -- I can play like I'm driving a delorean time machine!
Oh boy it should be so fun!
:lulz: I'm a bigot, huh? Okay. Apparently being vocally angry with the system and side eyeing cookie seekers makes me a bigot.
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 11:21:44 PM
:lulz: I'm a bigot, huh? Okay. Apparently being vocally angry with the system and side eyeing cookie seekers makes me a bigot.
What does it matter if you're a bigot against some faction or another? Even if you did hate CIS people, who gives a fuck? Roger just claimed to hate humans in general...everyone in this thread hates me for being a shit-spewing redneck, and I hate plenty of people.
Everyone hates...the constant hate and strife of conflict caused by such ensures that no ones overly idealistic views ever end up "winning".
Um, it matters because actual bigots are bad people? Like I said, I don't hate people based on their intersections (race, gender, class, etc.). If I hate them, it's on their individual merits.
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 11:28:39 PM
Um, it matters because actual bigots are bad people? Like I said, I don't hate people based on their intersections (race, gender, class, etc.). If I hate them, it's on their individual merits.
Ah, ok. I was overgeneralising the term bigot (i.e. someone who hates based on involuntary things like the protected classes you mentioned) and conflated it with idealogical difference.
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 11:19:04 PM
Roger, they are so far away from identical, they're not even on the same planet.
IT'S DIFFERENT WHEN WE DO IT.
QuoteI wasn't going to post this one, because the dude is, hmm, a little angrier than I think is possibly constructive and perhaps a little dismissive of cishets, but I think it's pretty apt, since this is now about cis-ness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zr1KOGQh5Lg
No longer interested. Like I said, FTS, YOYO.
QuoteFTR, I don't find cishets/straight people annoying until they prove to be annoying as individual people. I also think you're conflating anger at the system and with the institutions with anger at individuals. The only time I'm angry with an individual - and I don't think I'm unique - is when that person behaves as part of the system.
Yeah, well, I find YOU annoying as an individual. You said something offensive as hell, and you think it's just dandy because YOUR PRECIOUS SELF said it, so it's not the same as EVERY SINGLE BIGOTED COMMENT EVER MADE.
QuoteWe had this debate and I'm not interested in rehashing it.
That's good, because we're not going to. I think we're done here.
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 11:28:39 PM
Um, it matters because actual bigots are bad people?
Doesn't count if you're just bashing CISHET people. Because we're not really
people, thought the
good ones can be tolerated.
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 11:21:44 PM
:lulz: I'm a bigot, huh? Okay. Apparently being vocally angry with the system and side eyeing cookie seekers makes me a bigot.
No. Fucking making horrible bigoted statements makes you a bigot.
That's what a bigot IS, after all. Someone who does or says bigoted things.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 11:26:42 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 11:21:44 PM
:lulz: I'm a bigot, huh? Okay. Apparently being vocally angry with the system and side eyeing cookie seekers makes me a bigot.
What does it matter if you're a bigot against some faction or another? Even if you did hate CIS people, who gives a fuck? Roger just claimed to hate humans in general...everyone in this thread hates me for being a shit-spewing redneck, and I hate plenty of people.
Everyone hates...the constant hate and strife of conflict caused by such ensures that no ones overly idealistic views ever end up "winning".
Because singling out groups for hate is a weak hate. An unworthy hate.
No, my hate is a truck. And there's room for
everyone.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 11:35:49 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 11:26:42 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 11:21:44 PM
:lulz: I'm a bigot, huh? Okay. Apparently being vocally angry with the system and side eyeing cookie seekers makes me a bigot.
What does it matter if you're a bigot against some faction or another? Even if you did hate CIS people, who gives a fuck? Roger just claimed to hate humans in general...everyone in this thread hates me for being a shit-spewing redneck, and I hate plenty of people.
Everyone hates...the constant hate and strife of conflict caused by such ensures that no ones overly idealistic views ever end up "winning".
Because singling out groups for hate is a weak hate. An unworthy hate.
No, my hate is a truck. And there's room for everyone.
Oh come on, though. Your hate doesn't take the sort of mental gymnastics that validating racism or sexism or...whatever -ism hating straight white males is...you simply say "i hate everyone". It's so much more lawyerism to have to come up with a good reason to hate a specific group while having no REAL logic behind it. So much more logical back flipping...so much more pseudo-intellectual exercise...so much more fun ruminating over tangential statistics and logical points made of fallacies.
It's no fun to just hate all of man kind...it's too easy! :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Also, fuck you, Juana. My principles are my principles. They have nothing to do with your fucking cookies, and the implication that they are is offensive as hell. So when I say "YOYO", I'm speaking literally. YOU are on your own. I have no trouble supporting my daughter or anyone else who doesn't fit society's model.
And you know what? I didn't even ask my daughter to make cookies. Not even once.
You arrogant shit.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 11:39:47 PM
Oh come on, though. Your hate doesn't take the sort of mental gymnastics that validating racism or sexism or...whatever -ism hating straight white males is...you simply say "i hate everyone". It's so much more lawyerism to have to come up with a good reason to hate a specific group while having no REAL logic behind it. So much more logical back flipping...so much more pseudo-intellectual exercise...so much more fun ruminating over tangential statistics and logical points made of fallacies.
It's no fun to just hate all of man kind...it's too easy! :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Balls. I stay up an extra hour at night, just to hate you fuckers more. I need no excuses or mental gymnastics, I just need to wake up in the morning, to see what you fucking retards have done now.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 11:40:15 PM
Also, fuck you, Juana. My principles are my principles. They have nothing to do with your fucking cookies, and the implication that they are is offensive as hell. So when I say "YOYO", I'm speaking literally. YOU are on your own. I have no trouble supporting my daughter or anyone else who doesn't fit society's model.
And you know what? I didn't even ask my daughter to make cookies. Not even once.
You arrogant shit.
Wait, so you can literally place "my principals are my principals" as a valid argument, when a good deal of your rantings spout all on and on about reconsitering ones world view?
"Cookie-seekers". Shit.
TGRR,
Is still SHITTING IN HIS PANTS over that one. Fuck. The sheer ARROGANCE.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 11:42:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 11:40:15 PM
Also, fuck you, Juana. My principles are my principles. They have nothing to do with your fucking cookies, and the implication that they are is offensive as hell. So when I say "YOYO", I'm speaking literally. YOU are on your own. I have no trouble supporting my daughter or anyone else who doesn't fit society's model.
And you know what? I didn't even ask my daughter to make cookies. Not even once.
You arrogant shit.
Wait, so you can literally place "my principals are my principals" as a valid argument, when a good deal of your rantings spout all on and on about reconsitering ones world view?
Sure. My principles may change over time, to one degree or another. Everyone's do. Anyone who says their principles haven't changed from age 14 to 44 is eithr a liar or is brain damaged.
But when I do something, it's based on my beliefs at the time. Not for cookies. I can get THOSE at the Goddamn supermarket.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 11:41:41 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 11:39:47 PM
Oh come on, though. Your hate doesn't take the sort of mental gymnastics that validating racism or sexism or...whatever -ism hating straight white males is...you simply say "i hate everyone". It's so much more lawyerism to have to come up with a good reason to hate a specific group while having no REAL logic behind it. So much more logical back flipping...so much more pseudo-intellectual exercise...so much more fun ruminating over tangential statistics and logical points made of fallacies.
It's no fun to just hate all of man kind...it's too easy! :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Balls. I stay up an extra hour at night, just to hate you fuckers more. I need no excuses or mental gymnastics, I just need to wake up in the morning, to see what you fucking retards have done now.
hmm, I guess I can concede that rationalising hatred for your own species as a whole is just as difficult as rationalising unrational hate towards subsets of it.
to each his own set of hate I guess then.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 11:45:31 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 11:41:41 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 11:39:47 PM
Oh come on, though. Your hate doesn't take the sort of mental gymnastics that validating racism or sexism or...whatever -ism hating straight white males is...you simply say "i hate everyone". It's so much more lawyerism to have to come up with a good reason to hate a specific group while having no REAL logic behind it. So much more logical back flipping...so much more pseudo-intellectual exercise...so much more fun ruminating over tangential statistics and logical points made of fallacies.
It's no fun to just hate all of man kind...it's too easy! :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Balls. I stay up an extra hour at night, just to hate you fuckers more. I need no excuses or mental gymnastics, I just need to wake up in the morning, to see what you fucking retards have done now.
hmm, I guess I can concede that rationalising hatred for your own species as a whole is just as difficult as rationalising unrational hate towards subsets of it.
to each his own set of hate I guess then.
Not really. Go watch the news, and get back to me.
Hating isn't easy or hard. It's a state of being.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 11:44:33 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 11:42:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 11:40:15 PM
Also, fuck you, Juana. My principles are my principles. They have nothing to do with your fucking cookies, and the implication that they are is offensive as hell. So when I say "YOYO", I'm speaking literally. YOU are on your own. I have no trouble supporting my daughter or anyone else who doesn't fit society's model.
And you know what? I didn't even ask my daughter to make cookies. Not even once.
You arrogant shit.
Wait, so you can literally place "my principals are my principals" as a valid argument, when a good deal of your rantings spout all on and on about reconsitering ones world view?
Sure. My principles may change over time, to one degree or another. Everyone's do. Anyone who says their principles haven't changed from age 14 to 44 is eithr a liar or is brain damaged.
But when I do something, it's based on my beliefs at the time. Not for cookies. I can get THOSE at the Goddamn supermarket.
Honourable notion. I can feel satisfied in agreeing to disagree with you on points.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 11:42:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 11:40:15 PM
Also, fuck you, Juana. My principles are my principles. They have nothing to do with your fucking cookies, and the implication that they are is offensive as hell. So when I say "YOYO", I'm speaking literally. YOU are on your own. I have no trouble supporting my daughter or anyone else who doesn't fit society's model.
And you know what? I didn't even ask my daughter to make cookies. Not even once.
You arrogant shit.
Wait, so you can literally place "my principals are my principals" as a valid argument, when a good deal of your rantings spout all on and on about reconsitering ones world view?
In case you hadn't noticed, this conversation has not involved a whole lot of expending serious energy on replying to you. I say that as a spectator.
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 11:21:44 PM
:lulz: I'm a bigot, huh? Okay. Apparently being vocally angry with the system and side eyeing cookie seekers makes me a bigot.
I didn't see anyone badmouth you for being vocally angry with the system.
I did see some negative reaction to you accusing a known
actual ally of being in the game of demanding EQUAL RIGHTS for.... cookies? Which is sort of ridiculous.
What I want to know is -- again, as a spectator here -- at what point does one's privilege mark them for expanded scrutiny and skepticism when they renounce their entitlement to that privilege in favor of expanding the privilege to the status of a universal right for everyone? Is it when they have something to gain, personally, if the cause wins (other than the comforting knowledge that the cause won, that is)? If that's it, then why is it a problem if they
do gain something if the cause wins? Is the cause mutually exclusive with every other kind of benefit to every other kind of person? At that point, is there perhaps a hint of entitlement associated with the cause itself, where a victory might not be considered "complete" if it becomes pinned to advancing some "lesser" goals for "lesser" people?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 11:46:24 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 11:45:31 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 11:41:41 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 11:39:47 PM
Oh come on, though. Your hate doesn't take the sort of mental gymnastics that validating racism or sexism or...whatever -ism hating straight white males is...you simply say "i hate everyone". It's so much more lawyerism to have to come up with a good reason to hate a specific group while having no REAL logic behind it. So much more logical back flipping...so much more pseudo-intellectual exercise...so much more fun ruminating over tangential statistics and logical points made of fallacies.
It's no fun to just hate all of man kind...it's too easy! :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Balls. I stay up an extra hour at night, just to hate you fuckers more. I need no excuses or mental gymnastics, I just need to wake up in the morning, to see what you fucking retards have done now.
hmm, I guess I can concede that rationalising hatred for your own species as a whole is just as difficult as rationalising unrational hate towards subsets of it.
to each his own set of hate I guess then.
Not really. Go watch the news, and get back to me.
Hating isn't easy or hard. It's a state of being.
i'd say that's a relative statement. I'm defining "hard" as "investing energy into something"...it takes mental effort to construct hateful arguments online for the senseless pissing matches that occur on the internet...and it took the energy stored in vast resources of man power and zyklon B to enact the hate of the holocaust.
Hate, like all activities takes energy. Because it pits beings against each other and forces irrational struggle, it consumes an unduely high amount of energy.
Quote from: V3X on April 08, 2013, 11:49:23 PM
I did see some negative reaction to you accusing a known actual ally of being in the game of demanding EQUAL RIGHTS for.... cookies? Which is sort of ridiculous.
Unless the objective is to be able to shit on CIS people whether they're being supportive or not.
Because you can make the very act of being supportive an attack against you, right?
It justifies the bigotry.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 11:50:46 PM
i'd say that's a relative statement. I'm defining "hard" as "investing energy into something"...it takes mental effort to construct hateful arguments online for the senseless pissing matches that occur on the internet...and it took the energy stored in vast resources of man power and zyklon B to enact the hate of the holocaust.
Hate, like all activities takes energy. Because it pits beings against each other and forces irrational struggle, it consumes an unduely high amount of energy.
Perhaps for you. For me, it's sort of like Satori.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 11:50:46 PM
i'd say that's a relative statement. I'm defining "hard" as "investing energy into something"...it takes mental effort to construct hateful arguments online for the senseless pissing matches that occur on the internet...and it took the energy stored in vast resources of man power and zyklon B to enact the hate of the holocaust.
Hate, like all activities takes energy. Because it pits beings against each other and forces irrational struggle, it consumes an unduely high amount of energy.
I like to think of hate as the infinite void between the imaginary swirls of energy we know as subatomic particles. It is an unending reservoir from which to draw, the eternal void from which all things emerge and to which all things return. Hate is the natural, undisturbed origin and culmination of the universe. Presently your physical form is in the process of dissolving into this hate-ether, as are all of the people and objects you know and love. Hate simply is. What requires energy is conjuring up a world to live in for a while so you can ignore it.
It's like nirvana, except instead of being guided to hate by many lifetime's worth of enlightenment, you arrive at hate against your will, kicking and screaming, trying to claw your way back in the way you came out. Which, all things considered, is sort of ironic.
Why "cishet" instead of "hetcis"? Sounds like implying "Cis-shit" and on a pure phonetical level it IS.
Quote from: The Johnny on April 09, 2013, 12:09:58 AM
Why "cishet" instead of "hetcis"? Sounds like implying "Cis-shit" and on a pure phonetical level it IS.
I don't care if it's "petunia". The fact is, in her mouth it's an epithet.
Well, this thread blew up while I wasn't paying attention.
Quote from: Cainad on April 09, 2013, 12:14:27 AM
Well, this thread blew up while I wasn't paying attention.
That will happen.
:lulz:
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 11:19:04 PM
I wasn't going to post this one, because the dude is, hmm, a little angrier than I think is possibly constructive and perhaps a little dismissive of cishets, but I think it's pretty apt, since this is now about cis-ness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zr1KOGQh5Lg
FTR, I don't find cishets/straight people annoying until they prove to be annoying as individual people. I also think you're conflating anger at the system and with the institutions with anger at individuals. The only time I'm angry with an individual - and I don't think I'm unique - is when that person behaves as part of the system.
***TRANSCRIPTION***
QuoteDude: Straight people are fucking awful, i hate straight men. Straight people ruin everything, did that offend you? What i just said.
Fuck this guy, seriously, if i get discriminated just because im straight i really can't muster the sympathy to help your little personal cause.
FIGHTING HATE WITH HATE, ALIENATING OUR POSSIBLE ALLIES.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 12:16:45 AM
Quote from: Cainad on April 09, 2013, 12:14:27 AM
Well, this thread blew up while I wasn't paying attention.
That will happen.
:lulz:
WHO'S GOT TWO THUMBS AND THROWS GAS ON THE FIRE BY SAYING 'No wait guys, this schmuck might be worth our time to talk to?'
'DIS FUCKIN' GUY!
Listen to the rest of the video, Johnny. There's a reason he says what he says - responding with butthurt to underprivileged groups' anger at privileged groups is indicative of a person who doesn't understand their privilege. THE WHOLE REST OF THE SOCIETY is built to cater to the privileged, and whining because the underprivileged said "ugh, white/straight/whatever people" is making the issue about THEM instead of the system that causes an entire group to feel unsafe.
I have to say, I would feel bad if I thought this were motivated by anything other than Roger's butthurt, because a) if it weren't, you probably would have taken exception to the REST of the comment and b) it wasn't even directed at him. That smells like left over butthurt to me.
Vex, I wasn't accusing Roger/other known allies of cookie seeking. No one on this board has, to my knowledge, been a cookie seeker, because I think PD does a fairly good job at biped-ery. It's a lot of the rest of the world who does the cookie seeking behavior. And yes, actually, the way Roger responds to vocal anger at cishets as an institution is with anger/butthurt. Cishets as an institution kill a hell of a lot of queers every year and "ugh, cishets" (or similar sentiments directed at the institution) is really, really microscopic potatoes in comparison.
edited while answering more of Vex
Quote from: V3X on April 08, 2013, 11:49:23 PM
What I want to know is -- again, as a spectator here -- at what point does one's privilege mark them for expanded scrutiny and skepticism when they renounce their entitlement to that privilege in favor of expanding the privilege to the status of a universal right for everyone? Is it when they have something to gain, personally, if the cause wins (other than the comforting knowledge that the cause won, that is)? If that's it, then why is it a problem if they do gain something if the cause wins? Is the cause mutually exclusive with every other kind of benefit to every other kind of person? At that point, is there perhaps a hint of entitlement associated with the cause itself, where a victory might not be considered "complete" if it becomes pinned to advancing some "lesser" goals for "lesser" people?
It's not an issue of special scrutiny. It's an issue of people not acting like cookie seekers*
*The cookie seeking behavior when a privileged person acts like the fact that they do not actively want to hurt/kill/oppress a group means they are ~brave~ and ~special~ instead of decent human beings. White people don't get cookies for being brave enough to think that PoC shouldn't have to deal with an inherently racist police and justice system. Cishets don't get cookies for thinking that queers deserve equal protection under the law, including access to domestic violence and homeless shelters. Sometimes - a lot of the time, even, depending on the issue - privileged people do act like that. It's very LOOK AT ME! LOOK HOW I'M DIFFERENT!
I feel like this thread should be re-named Summer of Feminism 2.0 or something.
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 09, 2013, 12:30:37 AM
Listen to the rest of the video, Johnny. There's a reason he says what he says - responding with butthurt to underprivileged groups' anger at privileged groups is indicative of a person who doesn't understand their privilege. THE WHOLE REST OF THE SOCIETY is built to cater to the privileged, and whining because the underprivileged said "ugh, white/straight/whatever people" is making the issue about THEM instead of the system that causes an entire group to feel unsafe.
Fine, i'll transcribe the whole thing and we can nit-pick it.
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 09, 2013, 12:30:37 AM
I have to say, I would feel bad if I thought this were motivated by anything other than Roger's butthurt, because a) if it weren't, you probably would have taken exception to the REST of the comment and b) it wasn't even directed at him. That smells like left over butthurt to me.
This is utter madness Juana, i'm barely on civilized terms with Roger... are you implying that im sucking up to him? or that he has mind-lazors?... i commented on the video simply because it seems so flamboyantly ridiculous.
Left-over butthurt to who? You? I dont recall having an argument ever with you. Really wtf?
No, I'm not implying that.
Would you mind being clearer then? Ill return later with the transcription, have some stuff to do right now.
Sure! I was trying to get that part out before someone jumped on it before I could properly respond.
You and I have never had an argument, Johnny, nor has there been MIND LAZOR/etc. comments, lol. My response should have been edited better, because like 24 responses (and one car trip) were had between the time I started and the time I clicked post.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 11:32:44 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 11:19:04 PM
Roger, they are so far away from identical, they're not even on the same planet.
IT'S DIFFERENT WHEN WE DO IT.
Last time: any criticisms I have made have been directed
at institutions. The one and only personal comment I have made was directed at someone I think that we both, all other differences aside, can agree is an asshole.
Quote
QuoteI wasn't going to post this one, because the dude is, hmm, a little angrier than I think is possibly constructive and perhaps a little dismissive of cishets, but I think it's pretty apt, since this is now about cis-ness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zr1KOGQh5Lg
No longer interested. Like I said, FTS, YOYO.
I don't even know what that acronym means, but okay.
Quote
QuoteFTR, I don't find cishets/straight people annoying until they prove to be annoying as individual people. I also think you're conflating anger at the system and with the institutions with anger at individuals. The only time I'm angry with an individual - and I don't think I'm unique - is when that person behaves as part of the system.
Yeah, well, I find YOU annoying as an individual. You said something offensive as hell, and you think it's just dandy because YOUR PRECIOUS SELF said it, so it's not the same as EVERY SINGLE BIGOTED COMMENT EVER MADE.
No, my comment was directed at ONE shit head who was acting in a manner typical of white cishet male privilege (WCHMP) as an institution. You continue to conflate criticism of the institution of WCHMP with criticism of the individual.
Quote
QuoteWe had this debate and I'm not interested in rehashing it.
That's good, because we're not going to. I think we're done here.
Mkay.
I need to go do homework, so any replies after this will have to wait until, like, tomorrow afternoon.
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 09, 2013, 12:30:37 AM
Listen to the rest of the video, Johnny. There's a reason he says what he says - responding with butthurt to underprivileged groups' anger at privileged groups is indicative of a person who doesn't understand their privilege.
Yeah, except I'm not pissed at your anger, I'm pissed at a fucking bigoted statement.
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 09, 2013, 12:30:37 AM
Vex, I wasn't accusing Roger/other known allies of cookie seeking. No one on this board has, to my knowledge, been a cookie seeker, because I think PD does a fairly good job at biped-ery.
So we're the GOOD cishets.
I see.
And everyone else is a cookie seeker until proven otherwise. I mean, me, I want a better life for my daughter, who isn't CIS. I also like to look in the mirror every morning without wincing.
I mean, to be perfectly honest, I don't give a fuck about your validation ("cookies"), and I don't see why anyone else would, either.
The whole cookie-seeker thing, to me, seems like a means by which to be able to hate on "cishets" even if they wish to be supportive. It enables bigotry.
My daughter's comment, by the way, as of 5 minutes ago, was this:
Quote"I feel lucky that, in this awful town, I have 10 close friends that are fully supportive of me. I don't think they would be if they met Juana before they met me."
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 09, 2013, 12:30:37 AM
I have to say, I would feel bad if I thought this were motivated by anything other than Roger's butthurt, because a) if it weren't, you probably would have taken exception to the REST of the comment and b) it wasn't even directed at him. That smells like left over butthurt to me.
Oh, dear.
I don't need to have a bigoted comment directed at me to be offended by it, especially if I am in the population subset that you are talking about.
But I can't possibly be offended by something YOU said, right? It must be "old butthurt".
Hey, Garbo, how about you and I never fucking speak again, okay? I don't much like you, anymore. I sort of lump you in with the homophobes, etc, now.
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 09, 2013, 12:50:34 AM
No, my comment was directed at ONE shit head who was acting in a manner typical of white cishet male privilege (WCHMP) as an institution. You continue to conflate criticism of the institution of WCHMP with criticism of the individual.
Which really doesn't make any sense to me, since my very limited understanding of this CIS nonsense is that it's all what gender/orientation you see yourself as. How that is an institution I don't know.
But with that in mind would you be fine if someone made the same statement using the word(s) gay, bi or trans? If they said it was the institution they were talking about?
Because I really see no difference.
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 09, 2013, 12:50:34 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 11:32:44 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 11:19:04 PM
Roger, they are so far away from identical, they're not even on the same planet.
IT'S DIFFERENT WHEN WE DO IT.
Last time: any criticisms I have made have been directed at institutions. The one and only personal comment I have made was directed at someone I think that we both, all other differences aside, can agree is an asshole.
Then use words that refer to institutions, not people. Being 100% serious about that.
If I wanted to be lumped in with people I consider abhorrent, I could go to Tumblr.
Let's just try that out, Sita:
Quote from: original statement
Hell hath no fury like a white cishet man with his feelings hurt. :lulz:
Quote from: variation 1
Hell hath no fury like a transgendered person with his feelings hurt. :lulz:
Quote from: variation 2
Hell hath no fury like a Black woman with her feelings hurt. :lulz:
Yep. Nailed it one, Sita.
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 08, 2013, 08:55:34 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on April 08, 2013, 08:50:03 PM
I've argued the drug testing thing with a few people who are in favor of it so far and although it probably actually WILL lead to people's benefits being reduced the fact that it CAN lead to more taxes is an important part of the conversation. If you can get the person who doesn't want to help poor people buy drugs to realize that there is a definite possibility he's going to be paying more taxes to make sure that no welfare money goes to drugs then he's less likely to push the position as aggressively. It also means that he has to actually embrace the "take grandma's grocery money to pay to drug test" position which is morally difficult for most people. Of course most cling to "it'll save us money" and screech.
This baffles me. It's been shown to always cost more, fuck people over and help no one. Especially the sectors it is actually trying to help. Is it a perception thing? Like it should save money and help filthy addicts?
It's a side effect of shame. "I'm not like THEM. I'm different and better than THEM. I'm not black or on drugs or a single mom like THEM. I'M DIFFERENT".
If they can convince themselves that they're better, more worthy, more deserving, different from the OTHER assistance recipients, then they can align themselves with the idea that really, they're more like the wealthy, the worthy, the "job-creators". But in order to do that, they have to demonize the THEM who is all the other people on assistance that everyone looks down on. It also makes them feel like they have some measure of control over their lives and their future, because THOSE OTHERS were BAD, and since they're not BAD like THEM, they will someday be better off.
It's a hard and painful reality to accept that actually, the majority of people receiving assistance are pretty much just like you, or have other extenuating circumstances that justify the assistance, because that makes the world look like a pretty shitty and fucked-up place where a lot of decent, hardworking people can't seem to make life better for themselves even if they try real hard.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 09:10:19 PM
After reading the replies to this thread, I can say that there is absolutely nothing resembling credibility concerning the way I now view the opinions of the persons who made reply to me.
Certainly their were logical arguments here and there, but when I literally got told the most stereotypical liberal trope (one I wished had only been a simple stereotype) -- check your privilege -- I couldn't help but stop reading, and begin to promptly laugh until I shit my pants with the throbbing force of 1000 moons.
When the thread started speaking of racism, classism, sexism and then began making implications leaning towards steering the argument towards birth control, again, another 1000 moons of shit pulsed forth from my now-bleeding asshole at the sheer hilarity of what I was reading. Bonus points when someone piped up and assumed that Glenn Beck was someone I look up to.
Between taking quote out of context and the rabble of screams for the death of this poor, redneck, racist, CIS-scum, I can't help but laugh at how terribly accurate the stereotypes concerning liberal thinkers are.
Anyway, to make mention of the BIP...
Even years ago when I was still the dirty pot-smoking, wealth redistributing, welfare queen faggot, the BIP literally came off as nothing but a pale, gloom and doom, post-modern garbagecan-rehash of a little yellow book written by a stoned, schizophrenic hippy, and a slightly autistic UNIX programmer, who denounced the whole shitstain he'd created in the end anyway.
As for you Nigel, if you were paying as much in taxes as you claim (and no doubt these figures are true), then I can aptly say that the disparity of wealth between myself and you at the time of your prime, is such that in your failure and subsequent poverty, the old me would have been the one revelling in the fall of "just another rich fuck". Current CIS-scum capitalist me sees your use of the welfare system as a positive use of the system...the me that would have agreed with this thread sees it as just desserts for making more money than myself and my compatriots.
Anyway, I hope great prosperity in the future arguements of the whole lot of you. Perhaps one day, when by winning, you tax my working class ass back into the underclasses, you can marvel at the fact that you'll be paying for my food, taking care of my ails, and providing me housing...regardless of intellectually deformed or unworthy of your assistance you may deem me. You will be financing the existance of pure scum that is nothing but an ideological and fiscal drain on society...and this is what you get in WINNING your argument!
So I take it that you don't care for it much when uninformed, derogatory stereotypes (sorta like the ones you spout about welfare recipients) are applied to you? :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Yeah, I kind of figured as much. Check your assumptions at the door, monkey-boy.
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 09:19:32 PM
Hell hath no fury like a white cishet man with his feelings hurt. :lulz:
Jesus fuck, really? Hell apparently also hath no sense of entitlement to bigotry like a privileged white college girl, either.
Way to be an astonishing hypocrite and undermine the whole position.
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 09:31:43 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 08, 2013, 09:27:36 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 09:21:44 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 08, 2013, 09:16:34 PM
And for the record you entitled little fuck, you never bothered to give my input more than a passing glance.
Fuck you. Enjoy driving on the roads "YOUR CORPORATION" paid for because you're just another screaming clown.
Ah that's better.
This board's definition of entitlement is pants-on-head retarded. Your whole position that the poor should get some sort of assistance is literally the definition of entitlement...look anywhere that isn't PD for that definition, and you'll see that you're the entitled fuck.
And I will enjoy driving on my company's roads...because so long as my company is profitable enough to maintain those roads, I'll have a motivation to form a voluntary association with them.
Also, fuck you librul joo, imma go fuck mah sister, drink sum beer and watch nascar now, k?
Child, you won't leave here until your arse is red raw. But do enlighten me, why is the definition retarded?
Do you think your corporation will choose to voluntarly associate with you for long? You seem to offer nothing to the table. Why are you worth anything, let alone 9.50 again?
Well, I'm worth my wage because the company has need of what I do. I'm unconcerned with how long they choose to maintain that association; the market for my job is actually quite under-saturated and there are positions available from a plethora of companies offering the same type of work.
In other words, I'm not worried about the company losing interest in me because I work in a job that has high demand
Uhhhh
at $9.50/hour, it can't be THAT high of demand.
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 08, 2013, 09:34:07 PM
Quote from: Von Zwietracht on April 08, 2013, 09:10:19 PM
As for you Nigel, if you were paying as much in taxes as you claim (and no doubt these figures are true), then I can aptly say that the disparity of wealth between myself and you at the time of your prime, is such that in your failure and subsequent poverty, the old me would have been the one revelling in the fall of "just another rich fuck". Current CIS-scum capitalist me sees your use of the welfare system as a positive use of the system...the me that would have agreed with this thread sees it as just desserts for making more money than myself and my compatriots.
Dude, stop now.
Ehhh, don't worry about it. He's too dumb to understand the difference between "quit working a $30k/year job to go back to school so I can make $100+k/year again" and "welfare queen".
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 09:41:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 09:29:12 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 09:27:09 PM
People who are privileged have a tendency to respond with knee jerk anger-fueled denial when confronted with their own privilege.
Yes. I have noticed that.
And I thank you for lumping me and every other CIS person in with that, for expressing your contempt of everything we are, simply by virtue of being CIS.
There is zero difference between your comment and some po'bucker going off about "faggots".
FFS, Roger. I apologized for that comment months ago and meant it. I don't have any contempt for people who are cisgender, just because they're cis. It's a thing, just like being trans* is. Nor am I lumping anyone, and my comment is very much different than his. Mine was a comment about a typical reaction in this situation by a non-biped like him, and his was, well, a typical non-biped response.
Yeah, sorta like if I called you a typical privileged honkey.
I'm sure that would not at all undermine any of the points I've made about bigotry or prejudice or stereotype over the years.
Don't you think you have better credibility when you can engage in a discussion about privilege without resorting to stereotyping and bigotry via derogatory use of labeling words?
I miss seeing Phoxy here.
Phoxy never whined about CIShet and cookies.
She'd just RIP YOUR HEAD OFF AND EAT IT if you acted like a dick. Other than that, everybody was just people.
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 11:19:04 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 10:46:10 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 10:39:14 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 10:30:02 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 10:16:07 PM
3. I assumed, because you have used cisgendered yourself, in the entitlement and privilege thread, and because I know you get this whole privilege thing, that would be fairly obvious what I meant (specifically, a certain kind of white cishet man, which PD is mostly not populated by,
Did that sound okay to you when you wrote it?
Because it sounds like "There's Blacks and there's niggers". You could have just said "asshole" and left the CIS thing out of it.
Or maybe you couldn't.
Oh my god, Roger, no, it's not. Ugh. When I have my actual laptop out, instead of my tablet, I'll respond properly, but good lord, they are totally different. Privilege, dude.
Fuck you, the two situations are IDENTICAL. So take your "privilege" shut-down comment and shove it up your arse. The fact that *I* may have privilege you don't have does NOT give *you* an excuse to make bigoted fucking statements.
Roger, they are so far away from identical, they're not even on the same planet.
I wasn't going to post this one, because the dude is, hmm, a little angrier than I think is possibly constructive and perhaps a little dismissive of cishets, but I think it's pretty apt, since this is now about cis-ness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zr1KOGQh5Lg
FTR, I don't find cishets/straight people annoying until they prove to be annoying as individual people. I also think you're conflating anger at the system and with the institutions with anger at individuals. The only time I'm angry with an individual - and I don't think I'm unique - is when that person behaves as part of the system.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 08, 2013, 10:45:22 PM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 10:36:05 PM
No, I am not wild about certain kinds of people who claim it because they do it as if saying "I'm for equal marriage!" makes them an exceptional person who deserves cookies, instead of a person who meets the basic criteria for a decent human being.
Some people might do it out of principle. But don't let that stand in the way of your contempt.
Quote
Look, the system destroys the lives of the underprivileged. It oppresses and kills and rapes them. They have every right to resent the system. To penalize the people who vent about those issues is to ignore the fact that the people who benefit from the system (whatever intersection of race, class, gender, etc.) don't face those issues. We've already gone over what those issues are, so I won't beat a dead horse and repeat them, but it is still a fact that a member of privileged group A becoming upset when underprivileged group A complains about them as a group is making the issues about them as a person.
The obvious answer, of course, is to drive away anyone who is interested in helping with passive bigotry, so that you can continue to be the very, very special rebel, tirelessly fighting the powers that be...Solo. Far more dramatic that way.
We had this debate and I'm not interested in rehashing it.
I am really not understanding why you cannot grasp that the way you insist on labeling people is offensive. "Cishets"?
Have you taken any psychology classes? Do you know the reasons why psychologists try really hard to avoid referring to people by the names of their disorders? We don't have "a Bipolar" or "a Borderline" because it's completely, utterly dehumanizing.
It's the same thing when we try to be sensitive to the fact that trans and queer people are, first and foremost, people. It is a PERSON who is trans or gay or bi or whatever. Sort of like we don't say "this Black I know".
Is it making any more sense?
When you make a sweeping derogatory statement using "cishet" as a label, you are including all cisgendered heterosexual people in your statement by association, whether that's what you intended or not. VERY VERY much as if you said "That's just like a negro".
You can try to dilute this with arguments about privilege and entitlement, but although I agree that derogatory statements by an oppressed class have less power (and that is debatable, because if you use them to alienate the empowered, they can have a great deal of power), I do not agree that the lack of power makes them less derogatory or more acceptable.
To paraphrase Leslie Marmon Silko, all you are doing is speaking the enemy's language.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 09, 2013, 02:04:16 AM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 09:19:32 PM
Hell hath no fury like a white cishet man with his feelings hurt. :lulz:
Jesus fuck, really? Hell apparently also hath no sense of entitlement to bigotry like a privileged white college girl, either.
Way to be an astonishing hypocrite and undermine the whole position.
Thing is, this is one of those moments where a person (me) has to step back and say "this person does not represent the position".
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 09, 2013, 12:39:04 AM
Quote from: V3X on April 08, 2013, 11:49:23 PM
What I want to know is -- again, as a spectator here -- at what point does one's privilege mark them for expanded scrutiny and skepticism when they renounce their entitlement to that privilege in favor of expanding the privilege to the status of a universal right for everyone? Is it when they have something to gain, personally, if the cause wins (other than the comforting knowledge that the cause won, that is)? If that's it, then why is it a problem if they do gain something if the cause wins? Is the cause mutually exclusive with every other kind of benefit to every other kind of person? At that point, is there perhaps a hint of entitlement associated with the cause itself, where a victory might not be considered "complete" if it becomes pinned to advancing some "lesser" goals for "lesser" people?
It's not an issue of special scrutiny. It's an issue of people not acting like cookie seekers*
*The cookie seeking behavior when a privileged person acts like the fact that they do not actively want to hurt/kill/oppress a group means they are ~brave~ and ~special~ instead of decent human beings. White people don't get cookies for being brave enough to think that PoC shouldn't have to deal with an inherently racist police and justice system. Cishets don't get cookies for thinking that queers deserve equal protection under the law, including access to domestic violence and homeless shelters. Sometimes - a lot of the time, even, depending on the issue - privileged people do act like that. It's very LOOK AT ME! LOOK HOW I'M DIFFERENT!
I feel like this thread should be re-named Summer of Feminism 2.0 or something.
Sooooooo
You SEEM to be saying that it's not ok for anyone to publicly identify themselves as being for equality for groups other than their own, because in expressing their belief they are asking for special treatment, and as such it is inherently an expression of privilege?
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Yeah, I got nothing to say to that. Other than the fact that it's completely, radically brain-dead and goes against the very concept of applying social pressure for advancing equality.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 01:26:16 AM
Let's just try that out, Sita:
Quote from: original statement
Hell hath no fury like a white cishet man with his feelings hurt. :lulz:
Quote from: variation 1
Hell hath no fury like a transgendered person with his feelings hurt. :lulz:
Quote from: variation 2
Hell hath no fury like a Black woman with her feelings hurt. :lulz:
Yep. Nailed it one, Sita.
Well, except the last one. The last one is pretty much true. That's why everyone's afraid of you, because you're an Angry Black Woman.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 09, 2013, 02:42:44 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 01:26:16 AM
Let's just try that out, Sita:
Quote from: original statement
Hell hath no fury like a white cishet man with his feelings hurt. :lulz:
Quote from: variation 1
Hell hath no fury like a transgendered person with his feelings hurt. :lulz:
Quote from: variation 2
Hell hath no fury like a Black woman with her feelings hurt. :lulz:
Yep. Nailed it one, Sita.
Well, except the last one. The last one is pretty much true. That's why everyone's afraid of you, because you're an Angry Black Woman.
Quite right, I had forgotten.
Wow. Suddenly, I am frothing all over the place.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 02:30:16 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 09, 2013, 02:04:16 AM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 09:19:32 PM
Hell hath no fury like a white cishet man with his feelings hurt. :lulz:
Jesus fuck, really? Hell apparently also hath no sense of entitlement to bigotry like a privileged white college girl, either.
Way to be an astonishing hypocrite and undermine the whole position.
Thing is, this is one of those moments where a person (me) has to step back and say "this person does not represent the position".
I personally feel like your daughter won the thread by proxy.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 02:30:16 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 09, 2013, 02:04:16 AM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 09:19:32 PM
Hell hath no fury like a white cishet man with his feelings hurt. :lulz:
Jesus fuck, really? Hell apparently also hath no sense of entitlement to bigotry like a privileged white college girl, either.
Way to be an astonishing hypocrite and undermine the whole position.
Thing is, this is one of those moments where a person (me) has to step back and say "this person does not represent the position".
Yeah, YOU can. But you're over 40, very intelligent, and well-informed. What worries me is the people who don't know better, who might end up making the mistake of thinking that she and her statement DO represent the position and those who ally themselves with it, and then never give it a second thought.
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 09, 2013, 02:46:07 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 02:30:16 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 09, 2013, 02:04:16 AM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 09:19:32 PM
Hell hath no fury like a white cishet man with his feelings hurt. :lulz:
Jesus fuck, really? Hell apparently also hath no sense of entitlement to bigotry like a privileged white college girl, either.
Way to be an astonishing hypocrite and undermine the whole position.
Thing is, this is one of those moments where a person (me) has to step back and say "this person does not represent the position".
I personally feel like your daughter won the thread by proxy.
She has that effect. :lulz:
Or if i said something like:
"I hate all Pinko 'Murricans"
Just because my fellow Mexicans get treated like shit by SOME white americans, doesn't mean im entitled to make sweeping generalizations.
EDIT: Or wait! Maybe I am entitled and i have been missing out all along!
All I can hope is that Juana simply had a really shitty gender studies professor who indoctrinated her in some of these terrible ideas, and that they will shift over time as she is exposed to less... well, less completely shitty, unacceptable bullshit.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 09, 2013, 02:46:48 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 02:30:16 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 09, 2013, 02:04:16 AM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 09:19:32 PM
Hell hath no fury like a white cishet man with his feelings hurt. :lulz:
Jesus fuck, really? Hell apparently also hath no sense of entitlement to bigotry like a privileged white college girl, either.
Way to be an astonishing hypocrite and undermine the whole position.
Thing is, this is one of those moments where a person (me) has to step back and say "this person does not represent the position".
Yeah, YOU can. But you're over 40, very intelligent, and well-informed. What worries me is the people who don't know better, who might end up making the mistake of thinking that she and her statement DO represent the position and those who ally themselves with it, and then never give it a second thought.
You don't even have to imagine it. This is the sort of shit Limbaugh makes mad bank from.
"See, everyone? They want
special rights! They're man haters!", etc, etc.
And guess who reaches more people? Limbaugh or Garbo?
Shit, my sister just turned into a damn dittohead, from what I gather. Fortunately for me, I haven't had any reason to speak to her since my grandfather died.
Damn, I kind of hate to leave now, because the board has been HOPPING today, apparently. But I have to go to my friend's birthday dinner.
I anticipate a lot of reading material when I get back. :lulz:
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 09, 2013, 02:48:10 AM
All I can hope is that Juana simply had a really shitty gender studies professor who indoctrinated her in some of these terrible ideas, and that they will shift over time as she is exposed to less... well, less completely shitty, unacceptable bullshit.
Judging from the youtube link, I'd argue that it goes a bit farther than that.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 09, 2013, 02:49:44 AM
Damn, I kind of hate to leave now, because the board has been HOPPING today, apparently. But I have to go to my friend's birthday dinner.
I anticipate a lot of reading material when I get back. :lulz:
Go forth! Have fun!
Quote from: The Johnny on April 09, 2013, 02:47:43 AM
Or if i said something like:
"I hate all Pinko 'Murricans"
Just because my fellow Mexicans get treated like shit by SOME white americans, doesn't mean im entitled to make sweeping generalizations.
Precisely. Another person's privilege doesn't give license for bigotry on your own part.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 02:49:04 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 09, 2013, 02:46:48 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 02:30:16 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 09, 2013, 02:04:16 AM
Quote from: Juana Go? on April 08, 2013, 09:19:32 PM
Hell hath no fury like a white cishet man with his feelings hurt. :lulz:
Jesus fuck, really? Hell apparently also hath no sense of entitlement to bigotry like a privileged white college girl, either.
Way to be an astonishing hypocrite and undermine the whole position.
Thing is, this is one of those moments where a person (me) has to step back and say "this person does not represent the position".
Yeah, YOU can. But you're over 40, very intelligent, and well-informed. What worries me is the people who don't know better, who might end up making the mistake of thinking that she and her statement DO represent the position and those who ally themselves with it, and then never give it a second thought.
You don't even have to imagine it. This is the sort of shit Limbaugh makes mad bank from.
"See, everyone? They want special rights! They're man haters!", etc, etc.
And guess who reaches more people? Limbaugh or Garbo?
Shit, my sister just turned into a damn dittohead, from what I gather. Fortunately for me, I haven't had any reason to speak to her since my grandfather died.
Yeah, it pretty much reinforces what they already have been told to expect, as well as serving to effectively "us" and "them" us.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 02:50:08 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 09, 2013, 02:48:10 AM
All I can hope is that Juana simply had a really shitty gender studies professor who indoctrinated her in some of these terrible ideas, and that they will shift over time as she is exposed to less... well, less completely shitty, unacceptable bullshit.
Judging from the youtube link, I'd argue that it goes a bit farther than that.
Yeah, there seems to be a whole subculture of it. And that's a shame, really, because I know a fuckton of nonwhite and/or nonmale and/or noncis and/or nonhetero people, including myself, who are not at all represented by that subculture and DO NOT LIKE the fact that the people in it seem to be presuming to speak for everyone.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 09, 2013, 02:54:39 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 02:50:08 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 09, 2013, 02:48:10 AM
All I can hope is that Juana simply had a really shitty gender studies professor who indoctrinated her in some of these terrible ideas, and that they will shift over time as she is exposed to less... well, less completely shitty, unacceptable bullshit.
Judging from the youtube link, I'd argue that it goes a bit farther than that.
Yeah, there seems to be a whole subculture of it. And that's a shame, really, because I know a fuckton of nonwhite and/or nonmale and/or noncis and/or nonhetero people, including myself, who are not at all represented by that subculture and DO NOT LIKE the fact that the people in it seem to be presuming to speak for everyone.
When I think of non-CIS people, I think of my daughter.
Not the haters.
But as you and Keelin have both pointed out, that may not be the typical reaction.
Just watched the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zr1KOGQh5Lg
The guy is a fucking bigot, and he (and Garbo) are setting back the understanding of privilege by a great deal indeed.
MY BIGOTRY IS OKAY, YOURS IS NOT. IF YOU DISAGREE, IT'S BECAUSE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR PRIVILEGE.
This guy is rancid. He's poison.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 09, 2013, 02:54:39 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 02:50:08 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 09, 2013, 02:48:10 AM
All I can hope is that Juana simply had a really shitty gender studies professor who indoctrinated her in some of these terrible ideas, and that they will shift over time as she is exposed to less... well, less completely shitty, unacceptable bullshit.
Judging from the youtube link, I'd argue that it goes a bit farther than that.
Yeah, there seems to be a whole subculture of it. And that's a shame, really, because I know a fuckton of nonwhite and/or nonmale and/or noncis and/or nonhetero people, including myself, who are not at all represented by that subculture and DO NOT LIKE the fact that the people in it seem to be presuming to speak for everyone.
It's an amazingly counterproductive subculture, and one that I suspect is largely enabled by echo-chamber social networking. A particularly lovely example can be found in Tumblr (for some of the most hilariously egregious examples, clicky: http://www.reddit.com/r/TumblrInAction/ )
Outrage has become a form of social currency. Shouting out the most over-the-top anti-white-male-cis-hetero statements is a way to accumulate "likes" from the choir.
edit: LOL, that YouTube link is also on the Reddit
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 02:51:25 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 09, 2013, 02:47:43 AM
Or if i said something like:
"I hate all Pinko 'Murricans"
Just because my fellow Mexicans get treated like shit by SOME white americans, doesn't mean im entitled to make sweeping generalizations.
Precisely. Another person's privilege doesn't give license for bigotry on your own part.
I personally think that blindly lashing out against a generalization of people, is, well, just as bad as blindly lashing out against a generalization of people...
Its not only bad because its acting on prejudice, but also because it will perpetuate and reinforce the agression to your particular
MINORITY.
And besides the "not doing blind prejudice", as a MINORITY you cannot play the "asshole card" BECAUSE YOU WILL PROMPTLY GET SHOVED BACK AND GET STEAMROLLED BY THE MAJORITY.
Try being an illegal inmigrant in Arizona, calling every racist fuck a "Pinko" and count the minutes till you get murdered!
Quote from: The Johnny on April 09, 2013, 03:04:40 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 02:51:25 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 09, 2013, 02:47:43 AM
Or if i said something like:
"I hate all Pinko 'Murricans"
Just because my fellow Mexicans get treated like shit by SOME white americans, doesn't mean im entitled to make sweeping generalizations.
Precisely. Another person's privilege doesn't give license for bigotry on your own part.
I personally think that blindly lashing out against a generalization of people, is, well, just as bad as blindly lashing out against a generalization of people...
Its not only bad because its acting on prejudice, but also because it will perpetuate and reinforce the agression to your particular MINORITY.
And besides the "not doing blind prejudice", as a MINORITY you cannot play the "asshole card" BECAUSE YOU WILL PROMPTLY GET SHOVED BACK AND GET STEAMROLLED BY THE MAJORITY.
Try being an illegal inmigrant in Arizona, calling every racist fuck a "Pinko" and count the minutes till you get murdered!
Yeah, there's always the "don't be an asshole" angle, too.
Even if you COULD get away with it, WHY?
Quote from: Cainad on April 09, 2013, 03:03:12 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 09, 2013, 02:54:39 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 02:50:08 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 09, 2013, 02:48:10 AM
All I can hope is that Juana simply had a really shitty gender studies professor who indoctrinated her in some of these terrible ideas, and that they will shift over time as she is exposed to less... well, less completely shitty, unacceptable bullshit.
Judging from the youtube link, I'd argue that it goes a bit farther than that.
Yeah, there seems to be a whole subculture of it. And that's a shame, really, because I know a fuckton of nonwhite and/or nonmale and/or noncis and/or nonhetero people, including myself, who are not at all represented by that subculture and DO NOT LIKE the fact that the people in it seem to be presuming to speak for everyone.
It's an amazingly counterproductive subculture, and one that I suspect is largely enabled by echo-chamber social networking. A particularly lovely example can be found in Tumblr (for some of the most hilariously egregious examples, clicky: http://www.reddit.com/r/TumblrInAction/ )
Outrage has become a form of social currency. Shouting out the most over-the-top anti-white-male-cis-hetero statements is a way to accumulate "likes" from the choir.
edit: LOL, that YouTube link is also on the Reddit
Yeah, and it's hardly surprising that "privileged college student must radicalize to validate him/herself." They missed Angela Davis, they missed Gloria Steinem, they missed Harvey Milk...they even missed Gloria Gaynor. And, to top it all off, people aren't coming down on things like trans and homosexuality like they used to
1. So outrage must be manufactured, ergo an enemy must be created and then demonized.
So you get assholes like the one in that fucking video. Complete bag of hypocrisy and weak-ass hate, and I'd LOVE to say that I'm surprised Garbo bought that shit, but I know better now. Cognitive dissonance is not related to intelligence, it seems. She's smart, but she's obviously also WILLFULLY A DUMBASS.
1 Oh, it still happens. Not saying it doesn't. But now it's remarkable, instead of being a given.
I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE COOKIE-HATE ITT
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 03:07:46 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 09, 2013, 03:04:40 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 02:51:25 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 09, 2013, 02:47:43 AM
Or if i said something like:
"I hate all Pinko 'Murricans"
Just because my fellow Mexicans get treated like shit by SOME white americans, doesn't mean im entitled to make sweeping generalizations.
Precisely. Another person's privilege doesn't give license for bigotry on your own part.
I personally think that blindly lashing out against a generalization of people, is, well, just as bad as blindly lashing out against a generalization of people...
Its not only bad because its acting on prejudice, but also because it will perpetuate and reinforce the agression to your particular MINORITY.
And besides the "not doing blind prejudice", as a MINORITY you cannot play the "asshole card" BECAUSE YOU WILL PROMPTLY GET SHOVED BACK AND GET STEAMROLLED BY THE MAJORITY.
Try being an illegal inmigrant in Arizona, calling every racist fuck a "Pinko" and count the minutes till you get murdered!
Yeah, there's always the "don't be an asshole" angle, too.
Even if you COULD get away with it, WHY?
Because im entitled to it? :lol: just kidding. I really dont see a practical reason for it.
Im still going to transcribe all of that youtube video and ill nitpick it with Juana, I cant get on it right now because im working.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on April 09, 2013, 03:15:43 AM
I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE COOKIE-HATE ITT
Oh, not THOSE cookies. THOSE cookies are an
exception. They're the
good cookies, that stay among their own kind, wearing their gaudy clothes and making that music they make.
Ew. Just squicked myself out.
Quote from: The Johnny on April 09, 2013, 03:16:12 AM
Because im entitled to it? :lol: just kidding. I really dont see a practical reason for it.
Im still going to transcribe all of that youtube video and ill nitpick it with Juana, I cant get on it right now because im working.
You have a stronger stomach than I have. That guy is human garbage, not distinguishable from Fred Phelps or any given KKK member.
On the other hand, he accomplished his mission, which was to preach (a very small) hatred.
So I guess the video is a win.
(Edited to qualify the hate as weak.)
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 03:21:34 AM
On the other hand, he accomplished his mission, which was to preach hatred.
So I guess the video is a win.
Anything to achieve greater status in the tribe.
Anything. No matter how much shit you have to spew to get it.
Quote from: Cainad on April 09, 2013, 03:24:46 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 03:21:34 AM
On the other hand, he accomplished his mission, which was to preach hatred.
So I guess the video is a win.
Anything to achieve greater status in the tribe. Anything. No matter how much shit you have to spew to get it.
Yep. Throw more gold braid on the uniform, so to speak. Be the most outrageous dumbass on the block.
He's a miserable excuse for a human being, and in retrospect, so is Garbo. I gave some latitude in the past based on her age and apparent need to be a REBEL AGAINST OPPRESSION™, but enough is enough. A bigot is a bigot, and I'm done making excuses for her, even to myself.
Quote from: The Johnny on April 09, 2013, 12:09:58 AM
Why "cishet" instead of "hetcis"? Sounds like implying "Cis-shit" and on a pure phonetical level it IS.
I've always preferred "White middle class person with a penis" But I know that's a bit long if you're really full of hate. When said in a properly scornful tone of voice though it's devastating.
Quote from: Pergamos on April 09, 2013, 04:08:55 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 09, 2013, 12:09:58 AM
Why "cishet" instead of "hetcis"? Sounds like implying "Cis-shit" and on a pure phonetical level it IS.
I've always preferred "White middle class person with a penis" But I know that's a bit long if you're really full of hate. When said in a properly scornful tone of voice though it's devastating.
At least "breeder" goes more straight into the point; "cis" is also kinda snobbish.
Quote from: The Johnny on April 09, 2013, 04:33:39 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on April 09, 2013, 04:08:55 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 09, 2013, 12:09:58 AM
Why "cishet" instead of "hetcis"? Sounds like implying "Cis-shit" and on a pure phonetical level it IS.
I've always preferred "White middle class person with a penis" But I know that's a bit long if you're really full of hate. When said in a properly scornful tone of voice though it's devastating.
At least "breeder" goes more straight into the point; "cis" is also kinda snobbish.
"Breeder" is an asshole word, straight up assholery is preferable to this sanctimonious cishet bullshit.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on April 09, 2013, 03:15:43 AM
I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE COOKIE-HATE ITT
I love cookie. Cookie start with c.
Reading the last 10 pages of this thread has caused me to cry cishet man tears.
Quote from: Cain on April 09, 2013, 04:45:51 AM
Reading the last 10 pages of this thread has caused me to cry cishet man tears.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Cis/Cishet is the stupidest shit ever. What the holy fuck? Do we really need a mainstream term for "not gay, identifies as biologically assigned?"
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 09, 2013, 05:02:02 AM
Cis/Cishet is the stupidest shit ever. What the holy fuck? Do we really need a mainstream term for "not gay, identifies as biologically assigned?"
The term seems to have out of the blue, but in conversations where gender identity is being discussed there might as well be a shorthand way to say "gender identity matches biology." I don't object to the use of cis.
"Cishet" has about as much reason to exist as "Transgay." Which is to say, not much.
ALRIGHT HEREEEE WE GOOO:
Quote from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zr1KOGQh5Lg
Straight people are fucking awful. I hate straight men. Straight people ruin EVERYTHING. Did I offend you when i just said that thing that I just said?
When we were kids I think we were all very specifically told "You can't say things like <<I hate black people>> because its wrong to judge people by the colour of their skin, its wrong to say <<I hate someone of a specific race>>"
Really what they meant to teach us was "Perpetuating racism towards all these marginalized races in a world made for white people is wrong". The impression that so many of us, if not most of us got is "Saying you hate white people is just as bad as saying you hate black people" And I think that has translated into our ideas of queerness as well. Saying "I hate straight people" is not like saying "I hate gay people". If you think it is, you don't understand your privilege.
When I was at college, I was at Pride, and one of my teachers, one of my professors, who was trans and gay, we were talking about one of my classmates who was worried that her classmates would find out she was gay, if she spoke about her teacher's homophobia, and my teacher reassured me "Straight people are pretty clueless" And that was like, for me it was like "Woah, I've never heard a grown-up respectable person say anything like that before" And you know, it was kind of empowering to be able to say that "Yeah, straight people are kind of clueless" Often saying "heterophobic" things is empowering for me, I'm sorry. No, wait, I'm not sorry, actually.
When I'm offended by people saying shit about queer people that's because I've spent a lifetime in fear of homophobia. Literally, a lifetime being scared. My people, queer people, trans* people, we're being killed by straight people, ya know? So when you talk shit about us, you are perpetuating a cultural hatred and animosity towards us.
When I say "I hate straight people" I'm venting, because I'm tired of being scared of straight people all the time. And you know what? I don't really want to have to worry about your feelings while I'm upset. I have every reason to be upset, and I feel that my empowerment outweighs your offense. The fact that you find my hyperbole so offensive, tells me that you don't understand your privilege.
Let's seriously think of the consequences of me and my friends complaining about how fucking annoying straight people can be. Do straight people commit suicide because of it? No. Do they get murdered because of it? No. Are they discriminated against in the workplace because of it? No. There aren't actually any problems that come of it. We're a small minority, we're not gonna overpower straight people.
Does it mean I'm less likely to befriend a straight person? Maybe, yeah, but that has less to do with me saying that i find straight people annoying, and more to do with straight people being annoying. I prefer hanging out with people like me, it makes me feel safe. And i need to feel safe. And if you are offended, you don't understand what that's like, because you are validated in everything, everyday, because you're straight.
The same goes for white people "I have so much privilege walking down the street being white". I'm not gonna tell anyone of colour that they can't talk about how fucking annoying white people can be. Don't give me any of this colour-blind bullshit, don't tell me that you don't see gay people or bisexual people or straight people, you just see people. You get to say that because you don't have to worry about it. Therefore I take away your right to say that. It erases the experiences of marginalized people.
Maybe you think I'm too angry, but actually I think you are not angry enough. One really extreme example of, I guess "cisphobia", is trans* people saying "die cis scum". Now imagine a massive population of people, who are killing this tiny population of people, and then when the tiny population says "We fucking hate you" then the big population, who are killing the tiny population say "You don't get to say that!" What!? There is no trend of trans* violence towards cis people, there is no trend of queer violence towards straight people, that is not how the world works. Let us have our queer space, let us feel empowered. Or don't, because we'll fucking do it anyway.
And if you are a "cis-shit" just like me, you should read the comment's section so you know you aren't the only person angered (for different reasons perhaps, nevertheless).
One of the possible angles that can be taken, is that his entire perspective is tainted by a sociological reductionism.
There are homogenous "tribes" that are in a perpetual conflict because they have irreconciliable objectives.
And you see, Im no tribesmen, but if you hate me for the sole reason of existing i really don't think assiting you in any way will be benefitial for me, because you sound like a motherfucking PROTO-FASCIST, that given any position of power or opportunity will try to hurt me, just because you lumped me in with a bunch of other people i have little to nothing to do with their decisions or thoughts.
"All X are Y" Fuck you.
Wow, that's a lot of garbage that guy spewed.
Quote from: Cainad on April 09, 2013, 03:03:12 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 09, 2013, 02:54:39 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 02:50:08 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 09, 2013, 02:48:10 AM
All I can hope is that Juana simply had a really shitty gender studies professor who indoctrinated her in some of these terrible ideas, and that they will shift over time as she is exposed to less... well, less completely shitty, unacceptable bullshit.
Judging from the youtube link, I'd argue that it goes a bit farther than that.
Yeah, there seems to be a whole subculture of it. And that's a shame, really, because I know a fuckton of nonwhite and/or nonmale and/or noncis and/or nonhetero people, including myself, who are not at all represented by that subculture and DO NOT LIKE the fact that the people in it seem to be presuming to speak for everyone.
It's an amazingly counterproductive subculture, and one that I suspect is largely enabled by echo-chamber social networking. A particularly lovely example can be found in Tumblr (for some of the most hilariously egregious examples, clicky: http://www.reddit.com/r/TumblrInAction/ )
Outrage has become a form of social currency. Shouting out the most over-the-top anti-white-male-cis-hetero statements is a way to accumulate "likes" from the choir.
edit: LOL, that YouTube link is also on the Reddit
My non-gender-binary non-straight non-white daughter also finds it repellent. But then, she has straight white male cisgendered friends, and isn't any happier to see them "othered" than they are happy to see her "othered".
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on April 09, 2013, 03:15:43 AM
I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE COOKIE-HATE ITT
I will come right out and say that I do not hate the cookies. I may not be a cookie, but I am a cookie ally.
Quote from: The Johnny on April 09, 2013, 05:12:06 AM
ALRIGHT HEREEEE WE GOOO:
Quote from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zr1KOGQh5Lg
Straight people are fucking awful. I hate straight men. Straight people ruin EVERYTHING. Did I offend you when i just said that thing that I just said?
When we were kids I think we were all very specifically told "You can't say things like <<I hate black people>> because its wrong to judge people by the colour of their skin, its wrong to say <<I hate someone of a specific race>>"
Really what they meant to teach us was "Perpetuating racism towards all these marginalized races in a world made for white people is wrong". The impression that so many of us, if not most of us got is "Saying you hate white people is just as bad as saying you hate black people" And I think that has translated into our ideas of queerness as well. Saying "I hate straight people" is not like saying "I hate gay people". If you think it is, you don't understand your privilege.
When I was at college, I was at Pride, and one of my teachers, one of my professors, who was trans and gay, we were talking about one of my classmates who was worried that her classmates would find out she was gay, if she spoke about her teacher's homophobia, and my teacher reassured me "Straight people are pretty clueless" And that was like, for me it was like "Woah, I've never heard a grown-up respectable person say anything like that before" And you know, it was kind of empowering to be able to say that "Yeah, straight people are kind of clueless" Often saying "heterophobic" things is empowering for me, I'm sorry. No, wait, I'm not sorry, actually.
When I'm offended by people saying shit about queer people that's because I've spent a lifetime in fear of homophobia. Literally, a lifetime being scared. My people, queer people, trans* people, we're being killed by straight people, ya know? So when you talk shit about us, you are perpetuating a cultural hatred and animosity towards us.
When I say "I hate straight people" I'm venting, because I'm tired of being scared of straight people all the time. And you know what? I don't really want to have to worry about your feelings while I'm upset. I have every reason to be upset, and I feel that my empowerment outweighs your offense. The fact that you find my hyperbole so offensive, tells me that you don't understand your privilege.
Let's seriously think of the consequences of me and my friends complaining about how fucking annoying straight people can be. Do straight people commit suicide because of it? No. Do they get murdered because of it? No. Are they discriminated against in the workplace because of it? No. There aren't actually any problems that come of it. We're a small minority, we're not gonna overpower straight people.
Does it mean I'm less likely to befriend a straight person? Maybe, yeah, but that has less to do with me saying that i find straight people annoying, and more to do with straight people being annoying. I prefer hanging out with people like me, it makes me feel safe. And i need to feel safe. And if you are offended, you don't understand what that's like, because you are validated in everything, everyday, because you're straight.
The same goes for white people "I have so much privilege walking down the street being white". I'm not gonna tell anyone of colour that they can't talk about how fucking annoying white people can be. Don't give me any of this colour-blind bullshit, don't tell me that you don't see gay people or bisexual people or straight people, you just see people. You get to say that because you don't have to worry about it. Therefore I take away your right to say that. It erases the experiences of marginalized people.
Maybe you think I'm too angry, but actually I think you are not angry enough. One really extreme example of, I guess "cisphobia", is trans* people saying "die cis scum". Now imagine a massive population of people, who are killing this tiny population of people, and then when the tiny population says "We fucking hate you" then the big population, who are killing the tiny population say "You don't get to say that!" What!? There is no trend of trans* violence towards cis people, there is no trend of queer violence towards straight people, that is not how the world works. Let us have our queer space, let us feel empowered. Or don't, because we'll fucking do it anyway.
And if you are a "cis-shit" just like me, you should read the comment's section so you know you aren't the only person angered (for different reasons perhaps, nevertheless).
He has some good points buried in all the hate and separatism, but the good points have already been made by many people without the hate and separatism, and the hate and separatism elements are destructive to the type of environment that would (and, I believe, will) ultimately allow for an accepting nonbinary view of gender and sexuality to flourish.
It's not productive to equality for brown people to hate white people. In fact, historically the acts most conducive for furthering acceptance of equality have been those which voluntarily integrate, rather than separate, different people. The Loving decision. Gay marriage, itself, is an integrative act, because of community recognition. Promoting hatred and separatism has never been productive to equality.
Quote from: The Johnny on April 09, 2013, 04:33:39 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on April 09, 2013, 04:08:55 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 09, 2013, 12:09:58 AM
Why "cishet" instead of "hetcis"? Sounds like implying "Cis-shit" and on a pure phonetical level it IS.
I've always preferred "White middle class person with a penis" But I know that's a bit long if you're really full of hate. When said in a properly scornful tone of voice though it's devastating.
At least "breeder" goes more straight into the point; "cis" is also kinda snobbish.
Breeder just means heterosexual though. That's what my godmothers used to call straights. That and Het (which can be said with a lot of hate, and I blame some of my sexual confusion in college on hearing it said that way)
I think it is fairly horrible for that guy to say that the only horrible part of racism is for the more powerful group to hate the less powerful group. Apparently he is not familiar with the Hutus and the Tutsis, and how that horror can reverse to become just as terrifyingly destructive and terrible in the other direction, or even with the basic concept of how destructive hate is within a society. As a nonwhite person I have NEVER been taught that it is acceptable to hate white people just because they have more power and some of them hate me for no reason other than that I am not white. That kind of hate is absolutely as repugnant as whites hating coloreds.
Martin Luther King Jr. is a hero for a very good reason, as is Nelson Mandela, who came out of prison with a very good reason to hate white people but never took it up, never espoused it. Neither of them were perfect men, but they had beliefs which changed a lot of people's lives, and those beliefs eschewed hatred, rather than embracing it.
Quote from: Pergamos on April 09, 2013, 08:27:26 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 09, 2013, 04:33:39 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on April 09, 2013, 04:08:55 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 09, 2013, 12:09:58 AM
Why "cishet" instead of "hetcis"? Sounds like implying "Cis-shit" and on a pure phonetical level it IS.
I've always preferred "White middle class person with a penis" But I know that's a bit long if you're really full of hate. When said in a properly scornful tone of voice though it's devastating.
At least "breeder" goes more straight into the point; "cis" is also kinda snobbish.
Breeder just means heterosexual though. That's what my godmothers used to call straights. That and Het (which can be said with a lot of hate, and I blame some of my sexual confusion in college on hearing it said that way)
No, I know a lot of heterosexual people who chose not to reproduce who have used "breeder" as a derogatory term.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 09, 2013, 08:29:55 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on April 09, 2013, 08:27:26 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 09, 2013, 04:33:39 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on April 09, 2013, 04:08:55 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 09, 2013, 12:09:58 AM
Why "cishet" instead of "hetcis"? Sounds like implying "Cis-shit" and on a pure phonetical level it IS.
I've always preferred "White middle class person with a penis" But I know that's a bit long if you're really full of hate. When said in a properly scornful tone of voice though it's devastating.
At least "breeder" goes more straight into the point; "cis" is also kinda snobbish.
Breeder just means heterosexual though. That's what my godmothers used to call straights. That and Het (which can be said with a lot of hate, and I blame some of my sexual confusion in college on hearing it said that way)
No, I know a lot of heterosexual people who chose not to reproduce who have used "breeder" as a derogatory term.
Alright, the way it was used by my (Lesbian) godmothers when I was growing up it meant the same thing as Het.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 09, 2013, 08:29:55 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on April 09, 2013, 08:27:26 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 09, 2013, 04:33:39 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on April 09, 2013, 04:08:55 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 09, 2013, 12:09:58 AM
Why "cishet" instead of "hetcis"? Sounds like implying "Cis-shit" and on a pure phonetical level it IS.
I've always preferred "White middle class person with a penis" But I know that's a bit long if you're really full of hate. When said in a properly scornful tone of voice though it's devastating.
At least "breeder" goes more straight into the point; "cis" is also kinda snobbish.
Breeder just means heterosexual though. That's what my godmothers used to call straights. That and Het (which can be said with a lot of hate, and I blame some of my sexual confusion in college on hearing it said that way)
No, I know a lot of heterosexual people who chose not to reproduce who have used "breeder" as a derogatory term.
Its like calling a female a "boob" for acting awkwardly or something to that effect... its basicly a reductionism of the person to a single quality or part of their body.
Im not a "breeder" because, id like you to know, "breeding" is not my main occupation. (Not "you" you Nigel, i mean in the, what's it called, colloquial sense?)
Quote from: The Johnny on April 09, 2013, 08:39:49 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 09, 2013, 08:29:55 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on April 09, 2013, 08:27:26 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 09, 2013, 04:33:39 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on April 09, 2013, 04:08:55 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 09, 2013, 12:09:58 AM
Why "cishet" instead of "hetcis"? Sounds like implying "Cis-shit" and on a pure phonetical level it IS.
I've always preferred "White middle class person with a penis" But I know that's a bit long if you're really full of hate. When said in a properly scornful tone of voice though it's devastating.
At least "breeder" goes more straight into the point; "cis" is also kinda snobbish.
Breeder just means heterosexual though. That's what my godmothers used to call straights. That and Het (which can be said with a lot of hate, and I blame some of my sexual confusion in college on hearing it said that way)
No, I know a lot of heterosexual people who chose not to reproduce who have used "breeder" as a derogatory term.
Its like calling a female a "boob" for acting awkwardly or something to that effect... its basicly a reductionism of the person to a single quality or part of their body.
Im not a "breeder" because, id like you to know, "breeding" is not my main occupation. (Not "you" you Nigel, i mean in the, what's it called, colloquial sense?)
haha, yes, I get that you meant in the collective sense of everyone who was reading. And, "Breeder" is essentially a derogatory label because it reduces everyone who reproduces to the function of reproducing.
I have no idea what's going on. :?
I don't know either, other than every time I read "CIS", I hear Roger Daltry screaming in my head.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 09, 2013, 08:28:48 AM
I think it is fairly horrible for that guy to say that the only horrible part of racism is for the more powerful group to hate the less powerful group. Apparently he is not familiar with the Hutus and the Tutsis, and how that horror can reverse to become just as terrifyingly destructive and terrible in the other direction, or even with the basic concept of how destructive hate is within a society. As a nonwhite person I have NEVER been taught that it is acceptable to hate white people just because they have more power and some of them hate me for no reason other than that I am not white. That kind of hate is absolutely as repugnant as whites hating coloreds.
Hey now, it's not his fault none of his professors didn't include this book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Genocides-Oppressed-Subaltern-Genocide-Practice/dp/0253220777) in the syllabus. He cant be, like, expected to know stuff on his own or anything. That's what University is for - to tell you what is right, not to develop an interest and critical approach to research and theories.
Quote from: The Johnny on April 09, 2013, 05:12:06 AM
ALRIGHT HEREEEE WE GOOO:
Quote from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zr1KOGQh5Lg
Straight people are fucking awful. I hate straight men. Straight people ruin EVERYTHING. Did I offend you when i just said that thing that I just said?
When we were kids I think we were all very specifically told "You can't say things like <<I hate black people>> because its wrong to judge people by the colour of their skin, its wrong to say <<I hate someone of a specific race>>"
Really what they meant to teach us was "Perpetuating racism towards all these marginalized races in a world made for white people is wrong". The impression that so many of us, if not most of us got is "Saying you hate white people is just as bad as saying you hate black people" And I think that has translated into our ideas of queerness as well. Saying "I hate straight people" is not like saying "I hate gay people". If you think it is, you don't understand your privilege.
When I was at college, I was at Pride, and one of my teachers, one of my professors, who was trans and gay, we were talking about one of my classmates who was worried that her classmates would find out she was gay, if she spoke about her teacher's homophobia, and my teacher reassured me "Straight people are pretty clueless" And that was like, for me it was like "Woah, I've never heard a grown-up respectable person say anything like that before" And you know, it was kind of empowering to be able to say that "Yeah, straight people are kind of clueless" Often saying "heterophobic" things is empowering for me, I'm sorry. No, wait, I'm not sorry, actually.
When I'm offended by people saying shit about queer people that's because I've spent a lifetime in fear of homophobia. Literally, a lifetime being scared. My people, queer people, trans* people, we're being killed by straight people, ya know? So when you talk shit about us, you are perpetuating a cultural hatred and animosity towards us.
When I say "I hate straight people" I'm venting, because I'm tired of being scared of straight people all the time. And you know what? I don't really want to have to worry about your feelings while I'm upset. I have every reason to be upset, and I feel that my empowerment outweighs your offense. The fact that you find my hyperbole so offensive, tells me that you don't understand your privilege.
Let's seriously think of the consequences of me and my friends complaining about how fucking annoying straight people can be. Do straight people commit suicide because of it? No. Do they get murdered because of it? No. Are they discriminated against in the workplace because of it? No. There aren't actually any problems that come of it. We're a small minority, we're not gonna overpower straight people.
Does it mean I'm less likely to befriend a straight person? Maybe, yeah, but that has less to do with me saying that i find straight people annoying, and more to do with straight people being annoying. I prefer hanging out with people like me, it makes me feel safe. And i need to feel safe. And if you are offended, you don't understand what that's like, because you are validated in everything, everyday, because you're straight.
The same goes for white people "I have so much privilege walking down the street being white". I'm not gonna tell anyone of colour that they can't talk about how fucking annoying white people can be. Don't give me any of this colour-blind bullshit, don't tell me that you don't see gay people or bisexual people or straight people, you just see people. You get to say that because you don't have to worry about it. Therefore I take away your right to say that. It erases the experiences of marginalized people.
Maybe you think I'm too angry, but actually I think you are not angry enough. One really extreme example of, I guess "cisphobia", is trans* people saying "die cis scum". Now imagine a massive population of people, who are killing this tiny population of people, and then when the tiny population says "We fucking hate you" then the big population, who are killing the tiny population say "You don't get to say that!" What!? There is no trend of trans* violence towards cis people, there is no trend of queer violence towards straight people, that is not how the world works. Let us have our queer space, let us feel empowered. Or don't, because we'll fucking do it anyway.
And if you are a "cis-shit" just like me, you should read the comment's section so you know you aren't the only person angered (for different reasons perhaps, nevertheless).
All I can say is...LOOK AT THAT FUCKING HIPSTER! :lulz:
Seriously, the thing written out with the image of the guy who said it in my head is just ADORABLE!
He's THAT GUY. The guy who wrecked Occupy, the guy who will destroy anything resembling progress, if it scores him points within his perceived tribe.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 09, 2013, 08:28:48 AM
I think it is fairly horrible for that guy to say that the only horrible part of racism is for the more powerful group to hate the less powerful group. Apparently he is not familiar with the Hutus and the Tutsis, and how that horror can reverse to become just as terrifyingly destructive and terrible in the other direction, or even with the basic concept of how destructive hate is within a society. As a nonwhite person I have NEVER been taught that it is acceptable to hate white people just because they have more power and some of them hate me for no reason other than that I am not white. That kind of hate is absolutely as repugnant as whites hating coloreds.
Martin Luther King Jr. is a hero for a very good reason, as is Nelson Mandela, who came out of prison with a very good reason to hate white people but never took it up, never espoused it. Neither of them were perfect men, but they had beliefs which changed a lot of people's lives, and those beliefs eschewed hatred, rather than embracing it.
Or Mohhamed Ali, who expressed their anger, but in a positive way. "You're not going to shit on me and mine, anymore."
Or Malcolm X, who kept the anger and lost the hate.
Another thing. I had watched the quoted part...
Quote from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zr1KOGQh5Lg
Straight people are fucking awful. I hate straight men. Straight people ruin EVERYTHING. Did I offend you when i just said that thing that I just said?
When we were kids I think we were all very specifically told "You can't say things like <<I hate black people>> because its wrong to judge people by the colour of their skin, its wrong to say <<I hate someone of a specific race>>"
Really what they meant to teach us was "Perpetuating racism towards all these marginalized races in a world made for white people is wrong". The impression that so many of us, if not most of us got is "Saying you hate white people is just as bad as saying you hate black people" And I think that has translated into our ideas of queerness as well. Saying "I hate straight people" is not like saying "I hate gay people". If you think it is, you don't understand your privilege.
...Then I closed the tab, as the guy had stopped communicating at that point. He wasn't aiming a message at anyone other than his echo chamber buddies, apparently, because that last sentence was DESIGNED to get people to shut down. Not to get them angry - the first sentence handled the requirement for shock as a means to get peoples' attention - but to shut down the message,
except to people who already agree with him.There are two possible reasons for this:
1. He's lousy at communicating, or (more likely),
2. He's spouting for the purpose of establishing cred inside his group.
What this video is missing, to make it
perfect, is that he isn't wearing a little Brad Pitt hat.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 05:22:21 PM
Another thing. I had watched the quoted part...
Quote from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zr1KOGQh5Lg
Straight people are fucking awful. I hate straight men. Straight people ruin EVERYTHING. Did I offend you when i just said that thing that I just said?
When we were kids I think we were all very specifically told "You can't say things like <<I hate black people>> because its wrong to judge people by the colour of their skin, its wrong to say <<I hate someone of a specific race>>"
Really what they meant to teach us was "Perpetuating racism towards all these marginalized races in a world made for white people is wrong". The impression that so many of us, if not most of us got is "Saying you hate white people is just as bad as saying you hate black people" And I think that has translated into our ideas of queerness as well. Saying "I hate straight people" is not like saying "I hate gay people". If you think it is, you don't understand your privilege.
...Then I closed the tab, as the guy had stopped communicating at that point. He wasn't aiming a message at anyone other than his echo chamber buddies, apparently, because that last sentence was DESIGNED to get people to shut down. Not to get them angry - the first sentence handled the requirement for shock as a means to get peoples' attention - but to shut down the message, except to people who already agree with him.
There are two possible reasons for this:
1. He's lousy at communicating, or (more likely),
2. He's spouting for the purpose of establishing cred inside his group.
What this video is missing, to make it perfect, is that he isn't wearing a little Brad Pitt hat.
That's kind of uncanny: that is also the exact moment where I stopped hearing what he was saying. Pretty sure you've nailed it with anti-communication.
Quote from: Cainad on April 09, 2013, 06:09:57 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 05:22:21 PM
Another thing. I had watched the quoted part...
Quote from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zr1KOGQh5Lg
Straight people are fucking awful. I hate straight men. Straight people ruin EVERYTHING. Did I offend you when i just said that thing that I just said?
When we were kids I think we were all very specifically told "You can't say things like <<I hate black people>> because its wrong to judge people by the colour of their skin, its wrong to say <<I hate someone of a specific race>>"
Really what they meant to teach us was "Perpetuating racism towards all these marginalized races in a world made for white people is wrong". The impression that so many of us, if not most of us got is "Saying you hate white people is just as bad as saying you hate black people" And I think that has translated into our ideas of queerness as well. Saying "I hate straight people" is not like saying "I hate gay people". If you think it is, you don't understand your privilege.
...Then I closed the tab, as the guy had stopped communicating at that point. He wasn't aiming a message at anyone other than his echo chamber buddies, apparently, because that last sentence was DESIGNED to get people to shut down. Not to get them angry - the first sentence handled the requirement for shock as a means to get peoples' attention - but to shut down the message, except to people who already agree with him.
There are two possible reasons for this:
1. He's lousy at communicating, or (more likely),
2. He's spouting for the purpose of establishing cred inside his group.
What this video is missing, to make it perfect, is that he isn't wearing a little Brad Pitt hat.
That's kind of uncanny: that is also the exact moment where I stopped hearing what he was saying. Pretty sure you've nailed it with anti-communication.
Between that and this Mike Ravani guy, it sort of gelled in my head.
Hey everyone, remember how the Civil Right movement got its traction by alienating white males as loudly and obnoxiously as possible, then high-fiving and giggling amongst themselves?
No? You don't remember that? Then you need to check your privilege. Specifically, your privileged knowledge of history.
As much as there are bigots and fools, there are many, many members of the gay community who see us as allies. Case in point: I belong to a GLTB EMS activism community who, right from the start, opened its doors to us "breeders" (intended benignly) in the EMS community and who has posted several updates in thanks for their straight supporters.
We're all playing for the same team here. Does it really matter who's batting and who's pitching?
And tell your daughter, Rog: we ain't leavin her side. She's not alone.
Quote from: Cainad on April 09, 2013, 06:13:17 PM
Hey everyone, remember how the Civil Right movement got its traction by alienating white males as loudly and obnoxiously as possible, then high-fiving and giggling amongst themselves?
No? You don't remember that? Then you need to check your privilege. Specifically, your privileged knowledge of history.
:mittens:
Quote from: Cainad on April 09, 2013, 06:13:17 PM
Hey everyone, remember how the Civil Right movement got its traction by alienating white males as loudly and obnoxiously as possible, then high-fiving and giggling amongst themselves?
No? You don't remember that? Then you need to check your privilege. Specifically, your privileged knowledge of history.
The whole POINT of the civil rights movement was the politics of inclusion. Then, later on, "we're here, we're queer, learn to live with it", which was also inclusion. After all, the politics of inclusion doesn't dictate that you be POLITE about it.
But what these echo chamber noobs are jabbering are the politics of
exclusion. Because it feels more outre, more "HEY I'M IN YOUR FACE REBELLING! LOOK! LOOK, DAMN YOU! I'M FUCKING SPECIAL!" than forming coalitions.
Again, this is precisely how Occupy died. The jackasses in the funny little hats and the deliberately bad Italian shoes and fur-trimmed jackets got in and shat all over everything so they could be SPECIAL.
The whole fucking crowd of exclusion-based fucktards are special, all right. They're such special fucking snowflakes, I want to buy them the world's biggest bus, so they can sit in it and lick the windows.
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 09, 2013, 06:19:35 PM
As much as there are bigots and fools, there are many, many members of the gay community who see us as allies. Case in point: I belong to a GLTB EMS activism community who, right from the start, opened its doors to us "breeders" (intended benignly) in the EMS community and who has posted several updates in thanks for their straight supporters.
We're all playing for the same team here. Does it really matter who's batting and who's pitching?
And tell your daughter, Rog: we ain't leavin her side. She's not alone.
I can't accept the breeders thing. I wouldn't call a homosexual a pillow-biter or a donut-puncher, and I won't take "benign" derogatory names off of anyone else, either.
That's how this exclusion shit starts. Little tiny hypocrisies.
I almost wish I'd had it in me to jump in on Occupy and hurl poop at those fucktards. But then I would have been uninvited from their cappuccino parties.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 06:25:42 PM
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 09, 2013, 06:19:35 PM
As much as there are bigots and fools, there are many, many members of the gay community who see us as allies. Case in point: I belong to a GLTB EMS activism community who, right from the start, opened its doors to us "breeders" (intended benignly) in the EMS community and who has posted several updates in thanks for their straight supporters.
We're all playing for the same team here. Does it really matter who's batting and who's pitching?
And tell your daughter, Rog: we ain't leavin her side. She's not alone.
I can't accept the breeders thing. I wouldn't call a homosexual a pillow-biter or a donut-puncher, and I won't take "benign" derogatory names off of anyone else, either.
That's how this exclusion shit starts. Little tiny hypocrisies.
I guess it doesn't bother me because I used to hear it all the time when I used to volunteer for LIGaLy in NY. They meant it in an inclusive way and usually while they were referring to
themselves as "fags." As in: "We love you guys. We're just a happy family of fags and breeders."
There are subtle connotations attached to these colloquialisms (IE: the difference between "fag hag" and "fruit fly") and mostly, they're intended to be colorful but not outright derrogatory. It's why I find the whole "Cis" thing to be downright repugnant: it's not colorful or playfully teasing at all. It's a serious, hardcore label glued onto people while there are so many of us crouched down with a scraper and a bottle of goo-gone.
However, I know things change and I lose track. Perhaps that one has?
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 09, 2013, 06:46:16 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 06:25:42 PM
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 09, 2013, 06:19:35 PM
As much as there are bigots and fools, there are many, many members of the gay community who see us as allies. Case in point: I belong to a GLTB EMS activism community who, right from the start, opened its doors to us "breeders" (intended benignly) in the EMS community and who has posted several updates in thanks for their straight supporters.
We're all playing for the same team here. Does it really matter who's batting and who's pitching?
And tell your daughter, Rog: we ain't leavin her side. She's not alone.
I can't accept the breeders thing. I wouldn't call a homosexual a pillow-biter or a donut-puncher, and I won't take "benign" derogatory names off of anyone else, either.
That's how this exclusion shit starts. Little tiny hypocrisies.
I guess it doesn't bother me because I used to hear it all the time when I used to volunteer for LIGaLy in NY. They meant it in an inclusive way and usually while they were referring to themselves as "fags." As in: "We love you guys. We're just a happy family of fags and breeders."
There are subtle connotations attached to these colloquialisms (IE: the difference between "fag hag" and "fruit fly") and mostly, they're intended to be colorful but not outright derrogatory. It's why I find the whole "Cis" thing to be downright repugnant: it's not colorful or playfully teasing at all. It's a serious, hardcore label glued onto people while there are so many of us crouched down with a scraper and a bottle of goo-gone.
However, I know things change and I lose track. Perhaps that one has?
Well, context means a lot. If everyone's okay with it, I'm not going to slap my Culture Police hat on and start thumping on people.
As for the CIS thing, I found it to be a little horrormirthy at first, but eventually isolated my problem with it as "YOU CAN'T LABEL ME! I'M NORMAL! UUUNG!", and then had a good laugh at myself.
But you may notice that since the term ceased to be offensive, it was then morphed into "CISHET", meaning CIS/heterosexual, which is a deliberately calculated means to blast home the point that the exclusionary policy is being expanded.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 06:58:02 PM
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 09, 2013, 06:46:16 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 06:25:42 PM
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 09, 2013, 06:19:35 PM
As much as there are bigots and fools, there are many, many members of the gay community who see us as allies. Case in point: I belong to a GLTB EMS activism community who, right from the start, opened its doors to us "breeders" (intended benignly) in the EMS community and who has posted several updates in thanks for their straight supporters.
We're all playing for the same team here. Does it really matter who's batting and who's pitching?
And tell your daughter, Rog: we ain't leavin her side. She's not alone.
I can't accept the breeders thing. I wouldn't call a homosexual a pillow-biter or a donut-puncher, and I won't take "benign" derogatory names off of anyone else, either.
That's how this exclusion shit starts. Little tiny hypocrisies.
I guess it doesn't bother me because I used to hear it all the time when I used to volunteer for LIGaLy in NY. They meant it in an inclusive way and usually while they were referring to themselves as "fags." As in: "We love you guys. We're just a happy family of fags and breeders."
There are subtle connotations attached to these colloquialisms (IE: the difference between "fag hag" and "fruit fly") and mostly, they're intended to be colorful but not outright derrogatory. It's why I find the whole "Cis" thing to be downright repugnant: it's not colorful or playfully teasing at all. It's a serious, hardcore label glued onto people while there are so many of us crouched down with a scraper and a bottle of goo-gone.
However, I know things change and I lose track. Perhaps that one has?
Well, context means a lot. If everyone's okay with it, I'm not going to slap my Culture Police hat on and start thumping on people.
As for the CIS thing, I found it to be a little horrormirthy at first, but eventually isolated my problem with it as "YOU CAN'T LABEL ME! I'M NORMAL! UUUNG!", and then had a good laugh at myself.
But you may notice that since the term ceased to be offensive, it was then morphed into "CISHET", meaning CIS/heterosexual, which is a deliberately calculated means to blast home the point that the exclusionary policy is being expanded.
Nailhead, meet hammer.
And it didn't take very long, did it? I expect even more fucked up labels to come down the pike shortly.
My reaction when I see this stuff is that if I have to essentially MARRY INTO a damn community forsaking all others etc., etc., to be seen as supportive or whatever, fuck it. I can override that when necessary, but is everybody going to do that? It's really off-putting, and that's sad because trans people get fucked over a LOT.
Quote from: stelz on April 09, 2013, 07:26:16 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 06:58:02 PM
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 09, 2013, 06:46:16 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 06:25:42 PM
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 09, 2013, 06:19:35 PM
As much as there are bigots and fools, there are many, many members of the gay community who see us as allies. Case in point: I belong to a GLTB EMS activism community who, right from the start, opened its doors to us "breeders" (intended benignly) in the EMS community and who has posted several updates in thanks for their straight supporters.
We're all playing for the same team here. Does it really matter who's batting and who's pitching?
And tell your daughter, Rog: we ain't leavin her side. She's not alone.
I can't accept the breeders thing. I wouldn't call a homosexual a pillow-biter or a donut-puncher, and I won't take "benign" derogatory names off of anyone else, either.
That's how this exclusion shit starts. Little tiny hypocrisies.
I guess it doesn't bother me because I used to hear it all the time when I used to volunteer for LIGaLy in NY. They meant it in an inclusive way and usually while they were referring to themselves as "fags." As in: "We love you guys. We're just a happy family of fags and breeders."
There are subtle connotations attached to these colloquialisms (IE: the difference between "fag hag" and "fruit fly") and mostly, they're intended to be colorful but not outright derrogatory. It's why I find the whole "Cis" thing to be downright repugnant: it's not colorful or playfully teasing at all. It's a serious, hardcore label glued onto people while there are so many of us crouched down with a scraper and a bottle of goo-gone.
However, I know things change and I lose track. Perhaps that one has?
Well, context means a lot. If everyone's okay with it, I'm not going to slap my Culture Police hat on and start thumping on people.
As for the CIS thing, I found it to be a little horrormirthy at first, but eventually isolated my problem with it as "YOU CAN'T LABEL ME! I'M NORMAL! UUUNG!", and then had a good laugh at myself.
But you may notice that since the term ceased to be offensive, it was then morphed into "CISHET", meaning CIS/heterosexual, which is a deliberately calculated means to blast home the point that the exclusionary policy is being expanded.
Nailhead, meet hammer.
And it didn't take very long, did it? I expect even more fucked up labels to come down the pike shortly.
My reaction when I see this stuff is that if I have to essentially MARRY INTO a damn community forsaking all others etc., etc., to be seen as supportive or whatever, fuck it. I can override that when necessary, but is everybody going to do that? It's really off-putting, and that's sad because trans people get fucked over a LOT.
But to this particular echo chamber, it isn't about trans people getting randomly murdered, etc. It's about THEM and how SPECIAL they are.
The people who get dead are just grist for their mill. It's offensive as hell.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 07:27:59 PM
Quote from: stelz on April 09, 2013, 07:26:16 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 06:58:02 PM
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 09, 2013, 06:46:16 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 06:25:42 PM
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 09, 2013, 06:19:35 PM
As much as there are bigots and fools, there are many, many members of the gay community who see us as allies. Case in point: I belong to a GLTB EMS activism community who, right from the start, opened its doors to us "breeders" (intended benignly) in the EMS community and who has posted several updates in thanks for their straight supporters.
We're all playing for the same team here. Does it really matter who's batting and who's pitching?
And tell your daughter, Rog: we ain't leavin her side. She's not alone.
I can't accept the breeders thing. I wouldn't call a homosexual a pillow-biter or a donut-puncher, and I won't take "benign" derogatory names off of anyone else, either.
That's how this exclusion shit starts. Little tiny hypocrisies.
I guess it doesn't bother me because I used to hear it all the time when I used to volunteer for LIGaLy in NY. They meant it in an inclusive way and usually while they were referring to themselves as "fags." As in: "We love you guys. We're just a happy family of fags and breeders."
There are subtle connotations attached to these colloquialisms (IE: the difference between "fag hag" and "fruit fly") and mostly, they're intended to be colorful but not outright derrogatory. It's why I find the whole "Cis" thing to be downright repugnant: it's not colorful or playfully teasing at all. It's a serious, hardcore label glued onto people while there are so many of us crouched down with a scraper and a bottle of goo-gone.
However, I know things change and I lose track. Perhaps that one has?
Well, context means a lot. If everyone's okay with it, I'm not going to slap my Culture Police hat on and start thumping on people.
As for the CIS thing, I found it to be a little horrormirthy at first, but eventually isolated my problem with it as "YOU CAN'T LABEL ME! I'M NORMAL! UUUNG!", and then had a good laugh at myself.
But you may notice that since the term ceased to be offensive, it was then morphed into "CISHET", meaning CIS/heterosexual, which is a deliberately calculated means to blast home the point that the exclusionary policy is being expanded.
Nailhead, meet hammer.
And it didn't take very long, did it? I expect even more fucked up labels to come down the pike shortly.
My reaction when I see this stuff is that if I have to essentially MARRY INTO a damn community forsaking all others etc., etc., to be seen as supportive or whatever, fuck it. I can override that when necessary, but is everybody going to do that? It's really off-putting, and that's sad because trans people get fucked over a LOT.
But to this particular echo chamber, it isn't about trans people getting randomly murdered, etc. It's about THEM and how SPECIAL they are.
The people who get dead are just grist for their mill. It's offensive as hell.
Yes. And creepy, in a cultish kind of way.
Quote from: stelz on April 09, 2013, 07:26:16 PM
My reaction when I see this stuff is that if I have to essentially MARRY INTO a damn community forsaking all others etc., etc., to be seen as supportive or whatever, fuck it. I can override that when necessary, but is everybody going to do that? It's really off-putting, and that's sad because trans people get fucked over a LOT.
Yeah, I was surprised, in spite of my own believed familiarity in the GLBT community at my lack of comprehension about "labelless gender" until we had the conversation with Kai.
I'm leaning more and more towards a "who gives a shit?" model. Just trying to find the neutral ground between shoving people into boxes or steamrolling/failing to acknowledge someone's identity.
Labels are for the reader, not the wearer.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 07:27:59 PM
Quote from: stelz on April 09, 2013, 07:26:16 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 06:58:02 PM
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 09, 2013, 06:46:16 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 06:25:42 PM
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 09, 2013, 06:19:35 PM
As much as there are bigots and fools, there are many, many members of the gay community who see us as allies. Case in point: I belong to a GLTB EMS activism community who, right from the start, opened its doors to us "breeders" (intended benignly) in the EMS community and who has posted several updates in thanks for their straight supporters.
We're all playing for the same team here. Does it really matter who's batting and who's pitching?
And tell your daughter, Rog: we ain't leavin her side. She's not alone.
I can't accept the breeders thing. I wouldn't call a homosexual a pillow-biter or a donut-puncher, and I won't take "benign" derogatory names off of anyone else, either.
That's how this exclusion shit starts. Little tiny hypocrisies.
I guess it doesn't bother me because I used to hear it all the time when I used to volunteer for LIGaLy in NY. They meant it in an inclusive way and usually while they were referring to themselves as "fags." As in: "We love you guys. We're just a happy family of fags and breeders."
There are subtle connotations attached to these colloquialisms (IE: the difference between "fag hag" and "fruit fly") and mostly, they're intended to be colorful but not outright derrogatory. It's why I find the whole "Cis" thing to be downright repugnant: it's not colorful or playfully teasing at all. It's a serious, hardcore label glued onto people while there are so many of us crouched down with a scraper and a bottle of goo-gone.
However, I know things change and I lose track. Perhaps that one has?
Well, context means a lot. If everyone's okay with it, I'm not going to slap my Culture Police hat on and start thumping on people.
As for the CIS thing, I found it to be a little horrormirthy at first, but eventually isolated my problem with it as "YOU CAN'T LABEL ME! I'M NORMAL! UUUNG!", and then had a good laugh at myself.
But you may notice that since the term ceased to be offensive, it was then morphed into "CISHET", meaning CIS/heterosexual, which is a deliberately calculated means to blast home the point that the exclusionary policy is being expanded.
Nailhead, meet hammer.
And it didn't take very long, did it? I expect even more fucked up labels to come down the pike shortly.
My reaction when I see this stuff is that if I have to essentially MARRY INTO a damn community forsaking all others etc., etc., to be seen as supportive or whatever, fuck it. I can override that when necessary, but is everybody going to do that? It's really off-putting, and that's sad because trans people get fucked over a LOT.
But to this particular echo chamber, it isn't about trans people getting randomly murdered, etc. It's about THEM and how SPECIAL they are.
The people who get dead are just grist for their mill. It's offensive as hell.
The thing that is odd and particularly offensive about it is how often the echo chamber takes on the tone of "Champion of the Oppressed", when at the same time railing AGAINST people who are "cishet white males" calling themselves "allies". It sounds a lot like saying that when the people I love, who love me, demonstrate their support of me, they're really trying to steal my "specialness". That's offensive on a number of levels.
I don't like it. The echo chamber doesn't speak for me. I don't speak for gay men. I can't even speak for mixed race bisexual single moms, other than relating my own attitudes and opinions and those of other mixed race bisexual single moms.
And for fuck sake, leave me out of the separatism bullshit completely. I am SO not down with the "I hate straight white men" thing. That is not my bigotry and I don't accept it.
Some of my best friends are cishet white men :lulz:
Just thought of something. I was reading Johnny's transcription, and it occurred to me that the hipster was basically justifying the "Gay panic" defense.
There is this really bizarre notion in American academia (only there, it seems) that discrimination only exists within a power relationship between groups.
Therefore, so long as white straight men have more power than everyone else, no comment or act against straight white men can be discriminatory. Or, if they are, it doesn't matter because of said power disparity.
Needless to say, this is retarded. It mistakes the very problems of institutional racism as all acts of racism, that institutional sexism as all acts of sexism etc. I won't deny that institutional discrimination is the greater evil. That's the point of power, you can do stuff with it, and therefore when power and discrimination are married together, it is pretty awful. But does that mean, for example, a young Asian male in the UK who sets fire to a synagogue because he believes Jews perpetuate the suffering of the Ummah, is not being a bigot?
Power springs from the barrel of a gun. Or from a box of matches and access to petrol. It's crude power, but a very real sort. To focus on the insitutional problems obscures the different varieties of bigotry and discrimination that exist, all of which inflict pain and suffering based on a person's skin colour, or gender, or sexual orientation/gender affiliation.
Well put, Cain.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 10, 2013, 07:33:23 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 07:27:59 PM
Quote from: stelz on April 09, 2013, 07:26:16 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 06:58:02 PM
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 09, 2013, 06:46:16 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 09, 2013, 06:25:42 PM
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 09, 2013, 06:19:35 PM
As much as there are bigots and fools, there are many, many members of the gay community who see us as allies. Case in point: I belong to a GLTB EMS activism community who, right from the start, opened its doors to us "breeders" (intended benignly) in the EMS community and who has posted several updates in thanks for their straight supporters.
We're all playing for the same team here. Does it really matter who's batting and who's pitching?
And tell your daughter, Rog: we ain't leavin her side. She's not alone.
I can't accept the breeders thing. I wouldn't call a homosexual a pillow-biter or a donut-puncher, and I won't take "benign" derogatory names off of anyone else, either.
That's how this exclusion shit starts. Little tiny hypocrisies.
I guess it doesn't bother me because I used to hear it all the time when I used to volunteer for LIGaLy in NY. They meant it in an inclusive way and usually while they were referring to themselves as "fags." As in: "We love you guys. We're just a happy family of fags and breeders."
There are subtle connotations attached to these colloquialisms (IE: the difference between "fag hag" and "fruit fly") and mostly, they're intended to be colorful but not outright derrogatory. It's why I find the whole "Cis" thing to be downright repugnant: it's not colorful or playfully teasing at all. It's a serious, hardcore label glued onto people while there are so many of us crouched down with a scraper and a bottle of goo-gone.
However, I know things change and I lose track. Perhaps that one has?
Well, context means a lot. If everyone's okay with it, I'm not going to slap my Culture Police hat on and start thumping on people.
As for the CIS thing, I found it to be a little horrormirthy at first, but eventually isolated my problem with it as "YOU CAN'T LABEL ME! I'M NORMAL! UUUNG!", and then had a good laugh at myself.
But you may notice that since the term ceased to be offensive, it was then morphed into "CISHET", meaning CIS/heterosexual, which is a deliberately calculated means to blast home the point that the exclusionary policy is being expanded.
Nailhead, meet hammer.
And it didn't take very long, did it? I expect even more fucked up labels to come down the pike shortly.
My reaction when I see this stuff is that if I have to essentially MARRY INTO a damn community forsaking all others etc., etc., to be seen as supportive or whatever, fuck it. I can override that when necessary, but is everybody going to do that? It's really off-putting, and that's sad because trans people get fucked over a LOT.
But to this particular echo chamber, it isn't about trans people getting randomly murdered, etc. It's about THEM and how SPECIAL they are.
The people who get dead are just grist for their mill. It's offensive as hell.
The thing that is odd and particularly offensive about it is how often the echo chamber takes on the tone of "Champion of the Oppressed", when at the same time railing AGAINST people who are "cishet white males" calling themselves "allies". It sounds a lot like saying that when the people I love, who love me, demonstrate their support of me, they're really trying to steal my "specialness". That's offensive on a number of levels.
I don't like it. The echo chamber doesn't speak for me. I don't speak for gay men. I can't even speak for mixed race bisexual single moms, other than relating my own attitudes and opinions and those of other mixed race bisexual single moms.
And for fuck sake, leave me out of the separatism bullshit completely. I am SO not down with the "I hate straight white men" thing. That is not my bigotry and I don't accept it.
Nigel is riding the correct :motorcycle:
Quote from: Cain on April 10, 2013, 02:55:32 PM
There is this really bizarre notion in American academia (only there, it seems) that discrimination only exists within a power relationship between groups.
Therefore, so long as white straight men have more power than everyone else, no comment or act against straight white men can be discriminatory. Or, if they are, it doesn't matter because of said power disparity.
Needless to say, this is retarded. It mistakes the very problems of institutional racism as all acts of racism, that institutional sexism as all acts of sexism etc. I won't deny that institutional discrimination is the greater evil. That's the point of power, you can do stuff with it, and therefore when power and discrimination are married together, it is pretty awful. But does that mean, for example, a young Asian male in the UK who sets fire to a synagogue because he believes Jews perpetuate the suffering of the Ummah, is not being a bigot?
Power springs from the barrel of a gun. Or from a box of matches and access to petrol. It's crude power, but a very real sort. To focus on the insitutional problems obscures the different varieties of bigotry and discrimination that exist, all of which inflict pain and suffering based on a person's skin colour, or gender, or sexual orientation/gender affiliation.
The US is a nation of extreme everything; extreme stimulus, extreme reactions. The converse is that it's like we sort of dissociate and trivialize whenever someone isn't covered in their own vomit, bleeding their eyeballs out in the streets. I mean, not to RWHN the thread but that's why we fail to see things like drug addiction as an illness: we skip right over it. We go straight from "You're fine, everything is normal" to "OH MY BLOODY GOD, THROW HIS ASS IN JAIL."
I suspect the trivialization of bottom-up bigotry is a function of that.
I also suspect it's exactly why the healthcare system is so borked and yet we can't get off our asses and fix it. You're fine, fine, a little under the weather but fine, sick but fine, OMG You're dead!
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 10, 2013, 06:24:00 PM
I also suspect it's exactly why the healthcare system is so borked and yet we can't get off our asses and fix it. You're fine, fine, a little under the weather but fine, sick but fine, OMG You're dead!
*presses all the buttons
That thing this thread was about has been temporarily withdrawn for more study by the irredeemable cunt who proposed it.
http://www.wsmv.com/story/21939902/full-senate-to-hear-welfare-penalty-for-parents
Haw Haw Heeeeee!
QuoteOn Thursday, State Rep. Stacey Campfield (R-TN) withdrew his widely criticized bill to reduce welfare assistance for needy families if their children did not perform well in school. The state Senate would have voted on the measure this afternoon, but Campfield pulled the bill after his Republican colleagues refused to support it. Many children's advocacy groups, lawmakers, and clergy have expressed concern over the plan to cut Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF) benefits by 30 percent for students who did poorly in school.
As Campfield walked to the Senate chambers, he was presented with a petition of more than 2500 signatures collected by Clergy for Justice to protest the bill. The deliverer of the petition was an 8-year-old girl, Aamira Fetuga, whose mother, Rasheedat Fetuga, is the founder of a local child advocacy group.
As Aamira prepared to explain to Campfield why she was worried about his bill, Campfield dismissed her as a "prop" and hurried away, repeating over and over again, "Using children as props is shameful" as Aamira and her mother tried to talk to him.
Video included at the link.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/04/11/1855681/tennessee-welfare-prop/
YES, EPIC!!!!!!! :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/12/8-year-old-follows-tenn-lawmaker-around-capitol-until-he-drops-welfare-bill/
(http://i524.photobucket.com/albums/cc322/fennario99/553968_562243550476797_1202155126_n.jpg)
I can't believe that asshole dismissed that little girl as a "prop". I told my kids about it and they were aghast... it doesn't take an adult to have basic analysis skills and form an opinion.
He probably doesn't see anybody as really human. Could be why he thinks it's ok to starve people.
I kinda dislike the idea of parents involving their children in political functions and protests too. I don't like it when the Christians have kids under 13 handing out aborted baby flyers for their parents and I don't like it even when I agree with the cause. I don't like the idea of a kid being involved in a campaign whose message necessarily equates to "If I don't get good grades in school, they'll take money away from my mommy and she won't be able to feed us kids." That's not her battle. That's not a burden she should carry and that's WHY ditching this stupid idea is so important.
It's altogether possible the child asked mom "Ooooh! Please let ME hand it to him! Please, please, please? OOOOH!" Very likely, though, someone asked or coached her into it because it's cute and it makes a cute picture. THAT is a photo-op and THAT makes her a prop.
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 13, 2013, 10:37:27 PM
I kinda dislike the idea of parents involving their children in political functions and protests too. I don't like it when the Christians have kids under 13 handing out aborted baby flyers for their parents and I don't like it even when I agree with the cause. I don't like the idea of a kid being involved in a campaign whose message necessarily equates to "If I don't get good grades in school, they'll take money away from my mommy and she won't be able to feed us kids." That's not her battle. That's not a burden she should carry and that's WHY ditching this stupid idea is so important.
It's altogether possible the child asked mom "Ooooh! Please let ME hand it to him! Please, please, please? OOOOH!" Very likely, though, someone asked or coached her into it because it's cute and it makes a cute picture. THAT is a photo-op and THAT makes her a prop.
I dunno, I think when the issue directly effects the child, as this issue did, it is a bit different. If this bill had gone through suddenly the responsibility for keeping her family fed would be much more on this child than before the bill passed. She chose to take on that responsibility early, for not only herself but also all the other potentially affected kids. Maybe her parents coached her, maybe they didn't, but 8 year olds are perfectly capable of making those sorts of decisions on their own.
It's completely possible that the child wanted to do this and the adults were there to support her.
Children have political opinions, too, and they can be quite passionate about them. They aren't simply passive receptacles of whatever opinions adults shove at them.
Aamira's mother is the founder of a child advocacy group... that kind of group does not normally speak for children, but seeks to empower children to speak for themselves. Of course, she could be a giant hypocrite using her daughter as a mouthpiece, but I'm inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt.
IMO our elective officials spend too little time with the very constituents they're fucking over.
I cant see the harm of one of the human beings that might starve to death paying a congressman a visit.
Its not the same as, say, marching children with Westboro Baptist signs about.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 13, 2013, 11:57:55 PM
Aamira's mother is the founder of a child advocacy group... that kind of group does not normally speak for children, but seeks to empower children to speak for themselves. Of course, she could be a giant hypocrite using her daughter as a mouthpiece, but I'm inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt.
And that's fine too. I'm just saying; his saying that isn't entirely unfounded or dickish. It happens all the time.
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on April 14, 2013, 12:31:32 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 13, 2013, 11:57:55 PM
Aamira's mother is the founder of a child advocacy group... that kind of group does not normally speak for children, but seeks to empower children to speak for themselves. Of course, she could be a giant hypocrite using her daughter as a mouthpiece, but I'm inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt.
And that's fine too. I'm just saying; his saying that isn't entirely unfounded or dickish. It happens all the time.
...except for the context of him being a dick who wants to take food away from poor kids for getting bad grades.
Context really is everything.
I'm half expecting this law to come back in a new form that doesn't target the poor quite so explicitly. Maybe instead of taking away financial assistance, they take away their driver's license, or pay a fine.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 14, 2013, 01:24:32 AM
Context really is everything.
Yep.
And in addition, Molly Ivins had three rules for judging a politician: "The first is to look at the record. The second is to look at the record. And third, look at the record."
Quote from: stelz on April 14, 2013, 02:26:01 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on April 14, 2013, 01:24:32 AM
Context really is everything.
Yep.
And in addition, Molly Ivins had three rules for judging a politician: "The first is to look at the record. The second is to look at the record. And third, look at the record."
*checks*
Record seems to state that Sen. Stacey Campfield is a poopyhead who likes to pretend he's a villain from a Dicken's novel.
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 14, 2013, 01:45:48 AM
I'm half expecting this law to come back in a new form that doesn't target the poor quite so explicitly. Maybe instead of taking away financial assistance, they take away their driver's license, or pay a fine.
Currently in Tennessee, if you get suspended from school, you can lose your drivers license and
/ or be ineligible to get one for two years or until you turn 18.
In the one sense, it's kinda nice I suppose they're trying to tie in failure to do well at school with wider consequences.
However, these consequences are idiotic and mean little in a school system that fails to support a variety of learning methods and styles to accomodate the needs of the students.
I mean, I'd happily pay someone to slap my students in the face with a dead fish every time they slept in and missed a mock exam, for example.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on April 14, 2013, 04:45:41 AM
Quote from: Emo Howard on April 14, 2013, 01:45:48 AM
I'm half expecting this law to come back in a new form that doesn't target the poor quite so explicitly. Maybe instead of taking away financial assistance, they take away their driver's license, or pay a fine.
Currently in Tennessee, if you get suspended from school, you can lose your drivers license and
/ or be ineligible to get one for two years or until you turn 18.
Wow.
Great going, Tennessee. Especially given that the kids who are most likely to actually need a driver's license are the ones who are also working out of necessity, and therefore the ones who are most likely to be overtired and miss classes, which can lead to suspension.
So, if you lose your liscense for being suspended, what do they do if you drop out? Execute you?
Jail time for truancy, I'm guessing.
Quote from: stelz on April 14, 2013, 05:23:35 PM
Jail time for truancy, I'm guessing.
Already happened (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/05/27/Honor-student-does-jail-time-for-truancy/UPI-63631338141287/).
Quote from: Cain on April 14, 2013, 05:43:23 PM
Quote from: stelz on April 14, 2013, 05:23:35 PM
Jail time for truancy, I'm guessing.
Already happened (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/05/27/Honor-student-does-jail-time-for-truancy/UPI-63631338141287/).
That's Texas.
Most kids here who are not the issue of Elite City Councilmens and such seem to be in the system well before 9th grade.
http://ec.libsyn.com/p/b/9/3/b930bc4df45dfdef/029AdamDrewShow.mp3?d13a76d516d9dec20c3d276ce028ed5089ab1ce3dae902ea1d01ce8136d6c159af7d&c_id=5535407 (http://ec.libsyn.com/p/b/9/3/b930bc4df45dfdef/029AdamDrewShow.mp3?d13a76d516d9dec20c3d276ce028ed5089ab1ce3dae902ea1d01ce8136d6c159af7d&c_id=5535407)
i was listening to this, a good point was about how there needs to exist an equality of OPPORTUNITY, in which it doesnt matter if you are poor or a minority... but this differentiated from a view of everyone being EQUAL in the sense that not everyone has the cognitive abilities to go to college and should be given the chance of doing vocational training. im not fully on board with this, but sounds interesting.
what does disgust me is the ghost of the argument that parents are to blame and teachers being helpless martyrs... no, the least of our worries should be the parents when there are systemic deficiencies and failures in how education is structured... parents are just easy scapegoats
Quote from: The Johnny on April 17, 2013, 06:59:31 AM
http://ec.libsyn.com/p/b/9/3/b930bc4df45dfdef/029AdamDrewShow.mp3?d13a76d516d9dec20c3d276ce028ed5089ab1ce3dae902ea1d01ce8136d6c159af7d&c_id=5535407 (http://ec.libsyn.com/p/b/9/3/b930bc4df45dfdef/029AdamDrewShow.mp3?d13a76d516d9dec20c3d276ce028ed5089ab1ce3dae902ea1d01ce8136d6c159af7d&c_id=5535407)
i was listening to this, a good point was about how there needs to exist an equality of OPPORTUNITY, in which it doesnt matter if you are poor or a minority... but this differentiated from a view of everyone being EQUAL in the sense that not everyone has the cognitive abilities to go to college and should be given the chance of doing vocational training. im not fully on board with this, but sounds interesting.
what does disgust me is the ghost of the argument that parents are to blame and teachers being helpless martyrs... no, the least of our worries should be the parents when there are systemic deficiencies and failures in how education is structured... parents are just easy scapegoats
Equality of opportunity would maybe lead to more equality of aspirations and expectations, and the knock on effect might give more of a chance to smart poor people who have got the ability to have more hope, and not just give up. Inspiration from people around you has an effect on ambition, I think. I'm not sure to what degree though.
Quote from: Pixie on April 17, 2013, 02:04:49 PM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 17, 2013, 06:59:31 AM
http://ec.libsyn.com/p/b/9/3/b930bc4df45dfdef/029AdamDrewShow.mp3?d13a76d516d9dec20c3d276ce028ed5089ab1ce3dae902ea1d01ce8136d6c159af7d&c_id=5535407 (http://ec.libsyn.com/p/b/9/3/b930bc4df45dfdef/029AdamDrewShow.mp3?d13a76d516d9dec20c3d276ce028ed5089ab1ce3dae902ea1d01ce8136d6c159af7d&c_id=5535407)
i was listening to this, a good point was about how there needs to exist an equality of OPPORTUNITY, in which it doesnt matter if you are poor or a minority... but this differentiated from a view of everyone being EQUAL in the sense that not everyone has the cognitive abilities to go to college and should be given the chance of doing vocational training. im not fully on board with this, but sounds interesting.
what does disgust me is the ghost of the argument that parents are to blame and teachers being helpless martyrs... no, the least of our worries should be the parents when there are systemic deficiencies and failures in how education is structured... parents are just easy scapegoats
Equality of opportunity would maybe lead to more equality of aspirations and expectations, and the knock on effect might give more of a chance to smart poor people who have got the ability to have more hope, and not just give up. Inspiration from people around you has an effect on ambition, I think. I'm not sure to what degree though.
the part i meant that im sketchy on is the vocational training... here its a disaster because funds are getting slashed for higher education and redirected to pure vocational... that means that as a country we have given up on doing global quality science.
Quote from: The Johnny on April 18, 2013, 02:21:13 AM
Quote from: Pixie on April 17, 2013, 02:04:49 PM
Quote from: The Johnny on April 17, 2013, 06:59:31 AM
http://ec.libsyn.com/p/b/9/3/b930bc4df45dfdef/029AdamDrewShow.mp3?d13a76d516d9dec20c3d276ce028ed5089ab1ce3dae902ea1d01ce8136d6c159af7d&c_id=5535407 (http://ec.libsyn.com/p/b/9/3/b930bc4df45dfdef/029AdamDrewShow.mp3?d13a76d516d9dec20c3d276ce028ed5089ab1ce3dae902ea1d01ce8136d6c159af7d&c_id=5535407)
i was listening to this, a good point was about how there needs to exist an equality of OPPORTUNITY, in which it doesnt matter if you are poor or a minority... but this differentiated from a view of everyone being EQUAL in the sense that not everyone has the cognitive abilities to go to college and should be given the chance of doing vocational training. im not fully on board with this, but sounds interesting.
what does disgust me is the ghost of the argument that parents are to blame and teachers being helpless martyrs... no, the least of our worries should be the parents when there are systemic deficiencies and failures in how education is structured... parents are just easy scapegoats
Equality of opportunity would maybe lead to more equality of aspirations and expectations, and the knock on effect might give more of a chance to smart poor people who have got the ability to have more hope, and not just give up. Inspiration from people around you has an effect on ambition, I think. I'm not sure to what degree though.
the part i meant that im sketchy on is the vocational training... here its a disaster because funds are getting slashed for higher education and redirected to pure vocational... that means that as a country we have given up on doing global quality science.
ah, gotcha. Slashing one in favour of the other actually means less opportunity, so I get why you are sketchy on it.
Quote from: Cain on April 14, 2013, 01:27:07 PM
In the one sense, it's kinda nice I suppose they're trying to tie in failure to do well at school with wider consequences.
However, these consequences are idiotic and mean little in a school system that fails to support a variety of learning methods and styles to accomodate the needs of the students.
I mean, I'd happily pay someone to slap my students in the face with a dead fish every time they slept in and missed a mock exam, for example.
The problem is, we seem to have a culture in this country of punishing failure to overcome degradation and hardship with more degradation and hardship.
More obstacles and consequences are not going to vault these kids to the top. It's going to teach them to stay down.