http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/living-the-dream-what-do-you-own-really
The reality today is that Americans actually own less of their houses and land than ever. For the first time in modern history, the total value of all residential mortgage debt far surpasses the total value of all home equity in the United States.
makes me think of this place.
http://shareable.net/
Quote from: Charley Brown on July 19, 2010, 03:45:52 PM
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/living-the-dream-what-do-you-own-really
The reality today is that Americans actually own less of their houses and land than ever. For the first time in modern history, the total value of all residential mortgage debt far surpasses the total value of all home equity in the United States.
WHEEEEEEEEE!
BEHOLD! Here be what thy oh-so-loved deregulation hath wrought! Here is the price ye have paid for FREEDOM from the awful pinko-Commie-Liberal-Big-Government! Tea Party Uber Alles! :lulz: :lulz:
I own an iPod. A prole like me should be so lucky.
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 19, 2010, 09:47:48 PM
I own an iPod. A prole like me should be so lucky.
:mittens:
Quote from: Jasper on July 19, 2010, 09:47:48 PM
I own an iPod. A prole like me should be so lucky.
I have an Iprole.
It's called an alarm clock.
I have no idea what I own, the judge will tell me.
The house, however, is worth less than we owe on the damned place.
"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."
Some rocker chick.
Ah yes, this article. Good time to reread it.
The only things you really own are the things you stole.
Theft is property.
Quote from: Jasper on September 27, 2011, 06:24:02 PM
Ah yes, this article. Good time to reread it.
The only things you really own are the things you stole.
Theft is property.
Theft = property
anarchy = law
:?
Complex statement. Do not take at face value. :)
Quote from: The Rev on September 27, 2011, 04:08:08 PM
"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."
Some rocker chick.
Did you really just quote the worst screechy hippie of all time in what appears to be all seriousness?
More to the point, did you really just do that on the same day you made some snarky comment about being able to come to your own conclusions rather than being trained to think what you think?
Note to the hipster kids: this is what irony ACTUALLY looks like. :lulz:
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on September 27, 2011, 06:36:54 PM
Quote from: Jasper on September 27, 2011, 06:24:02 PM
Ah yes, this article. Good time to reread it.
The only things you really own are the things you stole.
Theft is property.
Theft = property
anarchy = law
:?
So if you put law in a safe, nobody can get at it, right?
Quote from: Triple Zero on September 27, 2011, 07:52:45 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on September 27, 2011, 06:36:54 PM
Quote from: Jasper on September 27, 2011, 06:24:02 PM
Ah yes, this article. Good time to reread it.
The only things you really own are the things you stole.
Theft is property.
Theft = property
anarchy = law
:?
So if you put law in a safe, nobody can get at it, right?
?
I don't get it.
that was for BadBeast, except he's not here. nevermind :)
If give law to bank, collect interests on justice :?
Quote from: Jasper on September 27, 2011, 06:24:02 PM
Ah yes, this article. Good time to reread it.
The only things you really own are the things you stole.
Theft is property.
The only think you really own is what's in your head (until they make mind readers), and your mistakes.
The first because nobody can get at them (yet), and the second because nobody else will take them.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on September 27, 2011, 07:35:43 PM
Quote from: The Rev on September 27, 2011, 04:08:08 PM
"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."
Some rocker chick.
Did you really just quote the worst screechy hippie of all time in what appears to be all seriousness?
More to the point, did you really just do that on the same day you made some snarky comment about being able to come to your own conclusions rather than being trained to think what you think?
Note to the hipster kids: this is what irony ACTUALLY looks like. :lulz:
I have always been a fan of Janis.
The other comment was in no way intended to be snarky.
A big part of the problem, I think, is when the stuff we think we own actually owns us. For instance, if you have to work three jobs to make a house payment, who owns who?
The only thing i own is noobs.
Quote from: The Rev on September 28, 2011, 04:54:13 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 28, 2011, 04:41:35 PM
The only thing i own is noobs.
You assume much.
Or you should be tried for the aggravated assault of Mr. The Funny.
I got nothing. Seriously, I've been pondering it for awhile, and at this point, I feel like I don't own a damn thing. Not even myself. My time, my thoughts, my body. All bought and sold at a whim no longer mine...
Quote from: The Rev on September 28, 2011, 04:54:13 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 28, 2011, 04:41:35 PM
The only thing i own is noobs.
You assume much.
Do you ever say anything interesting and/or funny? Srs question is srs.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on September 29, 2011, 01:22:02 AM
I got nothing. Seriously, I've been pondering it for awhile, and at this point, I feel like I don't own a damn thing. Not even myself. My time, my thoughts, my body. All bought and sold at a whim no longer mine...
Quote from: The Rev on September 28, 2011, 04:54:13 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 28, 2011, 04:41:35 PM
The only thing i own is noobs.
You assume much.
Do you ever say anything interesting and/or funny? Srs question is srs.
Me? No. Never.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on September 29, 2011, 01:22:02 AM
I got nothing. Seriously, I've been pondering it for awhile, and at this point, I feel like I don't own a damn thing. Not even myself. My time, my thoughts, my body. All bought and sold at a whim no longer mine...
I own my time and can sell it to an employer as to allow me to pay for other things i need and/or want.
I own my car, though with the cost of gas and insurance it's probably going to cost me more than taking care of the house.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 29, 2011, 02:32:22 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on September 29, 2011, 01:22:02 AM
I got nothing. Seriously, I've been pondering it for awhile, and at this point, I feel like I don't own a damn thing. Not even myself. My time, my thoughts, my body. All bought and sold at a whim no longer mine...
Quote from: The Rev on September 28, 2011, 04:54:13 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 28, 2011, 04:41:35 PM
The only thing i own is noobs.
You assume much.
Do you ever say anything interesting and/or funny? Srs question is srs.
Me? No. Never.
Wasn't talking to YOU, PD. I know you are never interesting or funny, you upside down bastard. :lol:
Quote from: PopeTom on September 29, 2011, 02:40:20 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on September 29, 2011, 01:22:02 AM
I got nothing. Seriously, I've been pondering it for awhile, and at this point, I feel like I don't own a damn thing. Not even myself. My time, my thoughts, my body. All bought and sold at a whim no longer mine...
I own my time and can sell it to an employer as to allow me to pay for other things i need and/or want.
I own my car, though with the cost of gas and insurance it's probably going to cost me more than taking care of the house.
Do you really? Hmm. I don't. My time, though willingly given, belongs to the university, the employer, the significant others, the people who ask me for help and countless others. Glad you can say you own your own time.
I guess in a lot of ways in the discussion we're having here it's worth rememberig that ownership is not physical or objective. I feel like I own more than many of you. I own my time; I rent t to the government for money and favors. I own my house (it's rented) so far as it represents my needs and I have possenrion of it by being in it. I own my thoughts; even if they're derivative of other things, a person with only sprout al thought is, you know, detached from reality, and I tend to know who I want to let in or not.
To own something, you decide to feel as though you own it.
Of course, this is not the case in the legal sense of the OP.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on September 29, 2011, 01:22:02 AM
I got nothing. Seriously, I've been pondering it for awhile, and at this point, I feel like I don't own a damn thing. Not even myself. My time, my thoughts, my body. All bought and sold at a whim no longer mine...
Quote from: The Rev on September 28, 2011, 04:54:13 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 28, 2011, 04:41:35 PM
The only thing i own is noobs.
You assume much.
Do you ever say anything interesting and/or funny? Srs question is srs.
There was no attempt to be funny. As far as anything interesting, I don't know. Which of my comments was the one that irritated you?
I'm with Thoreau on this one:
"I am monarch of all I survey,
My right there is none to dispute"
Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 29, 2011, 07:42:14 AM
I guess in a lot of ways in the discussion we're having here it's worth rememberig that ownership is not physical or objective. I feel like I own more than many of you. I own my time; I rent t to the government for money and favors. I own my house (it's rented) so far as it represents my needs and I have possenrion of it by being in it. I own my thoughts; even if they're derivative of other things, a person with only sprout al thought is, you know, detached from reality, and I tend to know who I want to let in or not.
To own something, you decide to feel as though you own it.
Of course, this is not the case in the legal sense of the OP.
If you weren't renting your time in exchange for money and favors, how would you eat and retain possession of the house? To me, ownership of your house is physical, to a degree. While it will never be completely owned, just unencumbered by a mortgage possibly, fail to pay your annual rent to the government and see exactly what you own.
Renting your time for money and favors reeks of prostitution. 8) Don't misunderstand me, to have comforts it has to be done, but thinking you own your time sounds, to me, like denial of reality.
Quote from: The Rev on September 29, 2011, 02:53:52 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 29, 2011, 07:42:14 AM
I guess in a lot of ways in the discussion we're having here it's worth rememberig that ownership is not physical or objective. I feel like I own more than many of you. I own my time; I rent t to the government for money and favors. I own my house (it's rented) so far as it represents my needs and I have possenrion of it by being in it. I own my thoughts; even if they're derivative of other things, a person with only sprout al thought is, you know, detached from reality, and I tend to know who I want to let in or not.
To own something, you decide to feel as though you own it.
Of course, this is not the case in the legal sense of the OP.
If you weren't renting your time in exchange for money and favors, how would you eat and retain possession of the house? To me, ownership of your house is physical, to a degree. While it will never be completely owned, just unencumbered by a mortgage possibly, fail to pay your annual rent to the government and see exactly what you own.
Renting your time for money and favors reeks of prostitution. 8) Don't misunderstand me, to have comforts it has to be done, but thinking you own your time sounds, to me, like denial of reality.
This whole thing seems completely fucking stupid. If I buy a phone and it spams me and breaks and cuts out and is generally a piece of shit, it is STILL MY PHONE.
If my time is used doing stuff that other people want me to do, even if my job sucks, I still own my time.
If I have to put my elbow on my nose to be able to use my phone to call my great aunt Amanda, the phone sucks. BUT IT IS STILL MY PHONE.
If I have to spend my time folding 100 fucking pizza boxes to get paid, well that's a lame way to spend my time. BUT it's a lame way to spend MY TIME.
I'm arguing against the habit of people volunteering away their SENSE OF OWNERSHIP by deciding that things that aren't working for them simply AREN'T THEIRS. Yes, you may have a MILLION shitty impositions on your time. BUT you have a million impositions on YOUR TIME, not on your bosses. Unless you want to give it up in your mind.
Talking about Mortgages; well that's where we're leaving the zone of perception reality and moving into the zone of legal realities, which I already pointed out I wasn't referring to.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 29, 2011, 03:07:00 PM
Quote from: The Rev on September 29, 2011, 02:53:52 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 29, 2011, 07:42:14 AM
I guess in a lot of ways in the discussion we're having here it's worth rememberig that ownership is not physical or objective. I feel like I own more than many of you. I own my time; I rent t to the government for money and favors. I own my house (it's rented) so far as it represents my needs and I have possenrion of it by being in it. I own my thoughts; even if they're derivative of other things, a person with only sprout al thought is, you know, detached from reality, and I tend to know who I want to let in or not.
To own something, you decide to feel as though you own it.
Of course, this is not the case in the legal sense of the OP.
If you weren't renting your time in exchange for money and favors, how would you eat and retain possession of the house? To me, ownership of your house is physical, to a degree. While it will never be completely owned, just unencumbered by a mortgage possibly, fail to pay your annual rent to the government and see exactly what you own.
Renting your time for money and favors reeks of prostitution. 8) Don't misunderstand me, to have comforts it has to be done, but thinking you own your time sounds, to me, like denial of reality.
This whole thing seems completely fucking stupid. If I buy a phone and it spams me and breaks and cuts out and is generally a piece of shit, it is STILL MY PHONE.
If my time is used doing stuff that other people want me to do, even if my job sucks, I still own my time.
If I have to put my elbow on my nose to be able to use my phone to call my great aunt Amanda, the phone sucks. BUT IT IS STILL MY PHONE.
If I have to spend my time folding 100 fucking pizza boxes to get paid, well that's a lame way to spend my time. BUT it's a lame way to spend MY TIME.
I'm arguing against the habit of people volunteering away their SENSE OF OWNERSHIP by deciding that things that aren't working for them simply AREN'T THEIRS. Yes, you may have a MILLION shitty impositions on your time. BUT you have a million impositions on YOUR TIME, not on your bosses. Unless you want to give it up in your mind.
Talking about Mortgages; well that's where we're leaving the zone of perception reality and moving into the zone of legal realities, which I already pointed out I wasn't referring to.
Of course you can own things like a phone. No brainer there.
I guess to me, that if you owned your time then you would be doing things you wanted to do, instead of things you have to do to survive. It is also unattainable unless one is independently wealthy.
As far as the perception that you own things that belong to someone else, well, that is very much like wearing rose colored glasses, isn't it?
Quote from: The Rev on September 29, 2011, 03:13:05 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 29, 2011, 03:07:00 PM
Quote from: The Rev on September 29, 2011, 02:53:52 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 29, 2011, 07:42:14 AM
I guess in a lot of ways in the discussion we're having here it's worth rememberig that ownership is not physical or objective. I feel like I own more than many of you. I own my time; I rent t to the government for money and favors. I own my house (it's rented) so far as it represents my needs and I have possenrion of it by being in it. I own my thoughts; even if they're derivative of other things, a person with only sprout al thought is, you know, detached from reality, and I tend to know who I want to let in or not.
To own something, you decide to feel as though you own it.
Of course, this is not the case in the legal sense of the OP.
If you weren't renting your time in exchange for money and favors, how would you eat and retain possession of the house? To me, ownership of your house is physical, to a degree. While it will never be completely owned, just unencumbered by a mortgage possibly, fail to pay your annual rent to the government and see exactly what you own.
Renting your time for money and favors reeks of prostitution. 8) Don't misunderstand me, to have comforts it has to be done, but thinking you own your time sounds, to me, like denial of reality.
This whole thing seems completely fucking stupid. If I buy a phone and it spams me and breaks and cuts out and is generally a piece of shit, it is STILL MY PHONE.
If my time is used doing stuff that other people want me to do, even if my job sucks, I still own my time.
If I have to put my elbow on my nose to be able to use my phone to call my great aunt Amanda, the phone sucks. BUT IT IS STILL MY PHONE.
If I have to spend my time folding 100 fucking pizza boxes to get paid, well that's a lame way to spend my time. BUT it's a lame way to spend MY TIME.
I'm arguing against the habit of people volunteering away their SENSE OF OWNERSHIP by deciding that things that aren't working for them simply AREN'T THEIRS. Yes, you may have a MILLION shitty impositions on your time. BUT you have a million impositions on YOUR TIME, not on your bosses. Unless you want to give it up in your mind.
Talking about Mortgages; well that's where we're leaving the zone of perception reality and moving into the zone of legal realities, which I already pointed out I wasn't referring to.
Of course you can own things like a phone. No brainer there.
I guess to me, that if you owned your time then you would be doing things you wanted to do, instead of things you have to do to survive. It is also unattainable unless one is independently wealthy.
As far as the perception that you own things that belong to someone else, well, that is very much like wearing rose colored glasses, isn't it?
If I own my own time = I can do whatever I want, then sure, by your specific definition most people don't own their own time.
Seeing as there's no physical reality associated with 'owning' your own 'time', I just find the choice of such a definition silly.
The most insidious evil is being convinced that you have no choice. You always have a choice.
You choose to spend your time in the way you spend it. If you choose to just walk away from your job, you'll suffer the consequences of that; but it is still a choice.
This puts the responsibility squarely back onto your shoulders. You conduct a cost/benefit analysis and decide that the shitiness you put up with at work is worth the hardship that would be incurred by walking away.
This is still your choice. You don't get to pass the buck up in some nebulous way. You own that responsibility.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on September 29, 2011, 03:17:46 PM
The most insidious evil is being convinced that you have no choice. You always have a choice.
You choose to spend your time in the way you spend it. If you choose to just walk away from your job, you'll suffer the consequences of that; but it is still a choice.
This puts the responsibility squarely back onto your shoulders. You conduct a cost/benefit analysis and decide that the shitiness you put up with at work is worth the hardship that would be incurred by walking away.
This is still your choice. You don't get to pass the buck up in some nebulous way. You own that responsibility.
I agree that there are choices. I agree that there are responsibilities associated with those choices. There is necessity as well, and that generally trumps a lot of choices. I choose to eat, therefore I work. I choose to have a roof over my head, therefore I work.
Do you think that the depth of the luxury we choose can determine how much of ourselves we are willing to sell in order to have those things? Do we need that 4000 sq. ft house or would a 2000 sq ft house work just as well? Do we need a 65 inch flat screen tv or just a tv?
I do think that we have been conditioned to sell ourselves, under the guise of the American Dream. Once we start doing that, then we have chosen to waive many choices, haven't we?
Being a biped means breaking that conditioning.
You can no more give up your choice than you can give up your free will; that's essentially what you are saying, and there is no ultimate authority over your decisions other than you.
That said, there's no shame in doing a bad job to get the things you want; it is a decision that you make. But you don't get to pass the blame for it on to anyone else, which is what claiming you have 'no choice' really means.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on September 29, 2011, 03:37:21 PM
Being a biped means breaking that conditioning.
You can no more give up your choice than you can give up your free will; that's essentially what you are saying, and there is no ultimate authority over your decisions other than you.
That said, there's no shame in doing a bad job to get the things you want; it is a decision that you make. But you don't get to pass the blame for it on to anyone else, which is what claiming you have 'no choice' really means.
Now this is interesting!
Have you ever heard someone say "I can't quit my job, we'll lose everything!" Is this not giving up your choice, or are you saying it is simply another kind of choice?
It is a choice. They even say it is a choice.
'I can't give up my job, I'll lose everything'
... yes. You've looked at it, and decided that everything you have is worth continuing in the job you dislike.
That is a perfectly sensible choice, but it is still a decision they've made.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on September 29, 2011, 03:45:13 PM
It is a choice. They even say it is a choice.
'I can't give up my job, I'll lose everything'
... yes. You've looked at it, and decided that everything you have is worth continuing in the job you dislike.
That is a perfectly sensible choice, but it is still a decision they've made.
Okay, I think so far we are in agreement. Do you agree that those choices can be taken from us? "You're fired."
Quote from: The Rev on September 29, 2011, 03:13:05 PM
I guess to me, that if you owned your time then you would be doing things you wanted to do, instead of things you have to do to survive. It is also unattainable unless one is independently wealthy.
Only if the "things you want to do" involve money.
Your juxtaposition with capitalism is in part a personal matter.
It is not money which is the prison, but the ego.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 29, 2011, 04:00:56 PM
Quote from: The Rev on September 29, 2011, 03:13:05 PM
I guess to me, that if you owned your time then you would be doing things you wanted to do, instead of things you have to do to survive. It is also unattainable unless one is independently wealthy.
Only if the "things you want to do" involve money.
Your juxtaposition with capitalism is in part a personal matter.
It is not money which is the prison, but the ego.
How about eating? Isn't that more survival instead of ego?
yes, you have to eat
if you see that as a prison, I'm not sure what you consider freedom :lol:
Food is the most addictive drug in the world, man.
Withdrawal symptoms are a bitch.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 29, 2011, 04:00:56 PM
Quote from: The Rev on September 29, 2011, 03:13:05 PM
I guess to me, that if you owned your time then you would be doing things you wanted to do, instead of things you have to do to survive. It is also unattainable unless one is independently wealthy.
Only if the "things you want to do" involve money.
Your juxtaposition with capitalism is in part a personal matter.
It is not money which is the prison, but the ego.
How do you propose surviving without money? Where will you live, and what will you eat?
You need to eat to live; does that mean you don't own the food?
If somebody else actually owned my time, I would think I could be compelled to stare at a wall until I died, instead of choosing to go to work.
Choosing to staple yourself in the balls isn't a good choice, but it is a choice.
Also I don't even remember what the point of any of this is any more.
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 04:20:26 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on September 29, 2011, 04:00:56 PM
Quote from: The Rev on September 29, 2011, 03:13:05 PM
I guess to me, that if you owned your time then you would be doing things you wanted to do, instead of things you have to do to survive. It is also unattainable unless one is independently wealthy.
Only if the "things you want to do" involve money.
Your juxtaposition with capitalism is in part a personal matter.
It is not money which is the prison, but the ego.
How do you propose surviving without money? Where will you live, and what will you eat?
I did not say one can survive without money.
The Rev posits that unless you are independently wealthy, you must choose between survival and "what you want to do". I disagree. You must spend a portion of your time addressing survival needs, but that's been true since long before money. Once survival is covered --- if you feel that you have to be wealthy in order to enjoy yourself, then I think you are being limited by your tastes.
Quote from: CramulusI did not say one can survive without money.
The Rev posits that unless you are independently wealthy, you must choose between survival and "what you want to do". I disagree. You must spend a portion of your time addressing survival needs, but that's been true since long before money. Once survival is covered --- if you feel that you have to be wealthy in order to enjoy yourself, then I think you are being limited by your tastes.
:mittens:
Nicely said.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 29, 2011, 04:30:04 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 04:20:26 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on September 29, 2011, 04:00:56 PM
Quote from: The Rev on September 29, 2011, 03:13:05 PM
I guess to me, that if you owned your time then you would be doing things you wanted to do, instead of things you have to do to survive. It is also unattainable unless one is independently wealthy.
Only if the "things you want to do" involve money.
Your juxtaposition with capitalism is in part a personal matter.
It is not money which is the prison, but the ego.
How do you propose surviving without money? Where will you live, and what will you eat?
I did not say one can survive without money.
The Rev posits that unless you are independently wealthy, you must choose between survival and "what you want to do". I disagree. You must spend a portion of your time addressing survival needs, but that's been true since long before money. Once survival is covered --- if you feel that you have to be wealthy in order to enjoy yourself, then I think you are being limited by your tastes.
Well, not to put too fine a point on it, do you wake up every single day wanting to go to work, or are there days that you have to drag yourself out of bed and force yourself to go? Here is what I mean by doing what we have to do, instead of crawling back in bed and going back to sleep, which is what we want to do.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 29, 2011, 04:30:04 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 04:20:26 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on September 29, 2011, 04:00:56 PM
Quote from: The Rev on September 29, 2011, 03:13:05 PM
I guess to me, that if you owned your time then you would be doing things you wanted to do, instead of things you have to do to survive. It is also unattainable unless one is independently wealthy.
Only if the "things you want to do" involve money.
Your juxtaposition with capitalism is in part a personal matter.
It is not money which is the prison, but the ego.
How do you propose surviving without money? Where will you live, and what will you eat?
I did not say one can survive without money.
The Rev posits that unless you are independently wealthy, you must choose between survival and "what you want to do". I disagree. You must spend a portion of your time addressing survival needs, but that's been true since long before money. Once survival is covered --- if you feel that you have to be wealthy in order to enjoy yourself, then I think you are being limited by your tastes.
That's not what I got out of his post at all. What I got was that unless you are independently wealthy, you will spend most of your time doing what you have to do to survive, rather than what you want to be doing. This is true, and in my experience the lower your earning potential the more true it is, to the point where some people spent so much time working that they are too burned out/exhausted to do things just because they want to do them.
If this is not true in your reality, then bravo; you are a very lucky man.
Rev, I think you're missing the key point of what Cramulus is saying. It's not a binary choice, it's a continuum. Once basic survival needs are met, you can choose how much "ownership" of your time you're willing to trade away for comfort.
Quote from: kingyak on September 29, 2011, 04:43:19 PM
Rev, I think you're missing the key point of what Cramulus is saying. It's not a binary choice, it's a continuum. Once basic survival needs are met, you can choose how much "ownership" of your time you're willing to trade away for comfort.
I think Nigel addressed this better than I could in the previous post.
Quote from: kingyak on September 29, 2011, 04:43:19 PM
Rev, I think you're missing the key point of what Cramulus is saying. It's not a binary choice, it's a continuum. Once basic survival needs are met, you can choose how much "ownership" of your time you're willing to trade away for comfort.
Yes, but this seems to assume that everyone's middle-class or better. It is definitely a continuum, but most of the world falls at the low end of the spectrum in terms of owning their time.
Not to harp too much on an old tune, but one of my occasional complaints about this board is the entrenchment of a very privileged perspective that tends to assume that everyone is similarly privileged, which implies judgement on those who somehow fail to be as privileged. Don't have enough free time? Get a better job, ya lazy bum! Clearly, it's that you have the
wrong priorities, and not that we live in a society that exploits the lowest-paid workers and is structured to keep them from doing better.
Hey, stop knocking my extremely priviledged worldview!
:p
Anyway, it's sounding like The Rev has the notion that the perfect state of being is a hedonistic, "do as you please" series of behaviors 100% of the time. He neglects to notice that this state of being has never existed, at any point in time.
Life is hard work, even for us rich white men.
And, as an aside, I should point out that the most fun and joy I have is entirely free of monetary cost. I have things, and they make me comfortable, but they don't make me happy.
It sounds like you're saying that we have no choice about how we spend our time and are basically victims of our capitalist environment.
I think that we have to take responsibility for our own happiness DESPITE having to work shitty jobs and shitty hours.
I do not think happiness is a middle class privilege. I think it's something that we all have control over, even if we are poor.
"It ain't all about the dolla bill. You could be flat broke and be a scholar still." - MF DOOM
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 04:53:48 PM
Not to harp too much on an old tune, but one of my occasional complaints about this board is the entrenchment of a very privileged perspective that tends to assume that everyone is similarly privileged, which implies judgement on those who somehow fail to be as privileged. Don't have enough free time? Get a better job, ya lazy bum! Clearly, it's that you have the wrong priorities, and not that we live in a society that exploits the lowest-paid workers and is structured to keep them from doing better.
and not to harp on this too much, but I kind of resent having my argument framed as calling poor people lazy.
I came to these conclusions about mental autonomy and owning my own happiness (despite capitalism) when I was eating Ramen Noodles 3 times a week. :p
Dude, no. My patience is very thin this morning.
"I know what it's like to be poor; sometimes I had to live on ramen noodles in those lean months after my parents put me through college, before I was able to secure my first office job".
And you're totally right, Cramulus. The system isn't fucking anyone over; it's their choice to remain impoverished. We all have choices, and they just make the wrong ones. The system is just right exactly the way it is.
I'm sorry, but the argument you appear to be sincerely making is specious, spoiled, and elitist, and the reason I am sorry is because I am profoundly disappointed in you.
In my experience, moving closer to the middle actually gives you less ability to control where you want to be one the spectrum. Most shitty jobs, in part because they're shitty, offer a lot of flexibility as to how much you work, especially if you're good at the job. And if a shitty job doesn't allow you the flexibility you need, it's usually not hard to move on to another shitty job (well, maybe not these days, but up until recently). More "respectable" jobs almost all require that you trade away a minimum of 40 hours a week, during specified times, and sometimes require you to make lifestyle adjustments (you need to follow the dress code, be able to pass the drug test, get a haircut, whatever) in return for the paycheck. When I drove a cab, I could work 2 or 3 days a week if I wanted, as long as I was willing to deal with the consequences (eating once a day, not being able to do anything that cost money, occasionally getting utilities shut off because I misjudged how much I'd make on the nights I worked), and there were a lot of times when I did just that to so I could work on personal projects. Now that I have a "real" job, I don't have that option. I'm expected to be here 40 hours a week even if I'd rather have the time to myself instead of the money.
It's not so much "get a better job, you bum." More "re-assess what constitutes 'necessity.'"
So, there was an article i read recently regarding a study that indicated wealth doesn't translate into happiness if you buy things, but it does if you buy experiences. So buying a giant TV will make you content for a short while, and then you take it for granted, returning to your overall happiness in life that you have maintained, but if you blow the cash on, say, base jumping down that giant hole in Mexico, or visiting some majestic ancient temple, or whatever, then your overall happiness actually increases for the duration...
So, owning memories is important.
wait. if were going to argue the finer points of 'ownership' then why not clear up the definition of 'you' first? :lol:
Quote from: kingyak on September 29, 2011, 05:27:01 PM
In my experience, moving closer to the middle actually gives you less ability to control where you want to be one the spectrum. Most shitty jobs, in part because they're shitty, offer a lot of flexibility as to how much you work, especially if you're good at the job. And if a shitty job doesn't allow you the flexibility you need, it's usually not hard to move on to another shitty job (well, maybe not these days, but up until recently). More "respectable" jobs almost all require that you trade away a minimum of 40 hours a week, during specified times, and sometimes require you to make lifestyle adjustments (you need to follow the dress code, be able to pass the drug test, get a haircut, whatever) in return for the paycheck. When I drove a cab, I could work 2 or 3 days a week if I wanted, as long as I was willing to deal with the consequences (eating once a day, not being able to do anything that cost money, occasionally getting utilities shut off because I misjudged how much I'd make on the nights I worked), and there were a lot of times when I did just that to so I could work on personal projects. Now that I have a "real" job, I don't have that option. I'm expected to be here 40 hours a week even if I'd rather have the time to myself instead of the money.
It's not so much "get a better job, you bum." More "re-assess what constitutes 'necessity.'"
But that assessment only works
if you have a certain amount of leeway to begin with.If you are a young single person, it's not that hard to survive on a shitty part-time job. Add kids to the equation and see what happens. And don't give me some facile solution like "then don't have kids" because that's glib bullshit.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 29, 2011, 05:02:13 PM
Hey, stop knocking my extremely priviledged worldview!
:p
Anyway, it's sounding like The Rev has the notion that the perfect state of being is a hedonistic, "do as you please" series of behaviors 100% of the time. He neglects to notice that this state of being has never existed, at any point in time.
Life is hard work, even for us rich white men.
And, as an aside, I should point out that the most fun and joy I have is entirely free of monetary cost. I have things, and they make me comfortable, but they don't make me happy.
No. No. No.
The point is that what many of the things we call choices are not choices, but driven by necessity. Within those necessities lie certain choices, but the choices are still being driven by some external force.
I am saying that you can find ways to experience happiness even if you're poor, even if you live in a shitty system.
Nowhere did I say that poor people choose to be poor.
I thought it was an interesting discussion, but you seem hell bent on making it into a personal issue.
*shrug*
Quote from: Cramulus on September 29, 2011, 05:05:49 PM
It sounds like you're saying that we have no choice about how we spend our time and are basically victims of our capitalist environment.
I think that we have to take responsibility for our own happiness DESPITE having to work shitty jobs and shitty hours.
I do not think happiness is a middle class privilege. I think it's something that we all have control over, even if we are poor.
"It ain't all about the dolla bill. You could be flat broke and be a scholar still." - MF DOOM
In perspective, if one is deciding whether to pay the light bill or the water bill, is most certainly is about the dollar bill. Whether one is deciding between paying the rent or buying groceries it is most certainly about the dollar bill. When one is deciding between buying medical services, including prescriptions, and any of the above it is most certainly about the dollar bill.
Isn't it?
As far as "you have control over your own happiness", that is partially true. You usually have some control over your own happiness. However, there are ample studies on happiness and poverty, and the greatest detractor from happiness is survival stress. It is hard to be happy when you are stressed about whether you will be able to maintain your shelter and feed your kids. Very poor people are often happy, when they have a secure home and a steady source of food. Most urban poor don't have that.
Quote from: Iptuous on September 29, 2011, 05:30:14 PM
So, there was an article i read recently regarding a study that indicated wealth doesn't translate into happiness if you buy things, but it does if you buy experiences. So buying a giant TV will make you content for a short while, and then you take it for granted, returning to your overall happiness in life that you have maintained, but if you blow the cash on, say, base jumping down that giant hole in Mexico, or visiting some majestic ancient temple, or whatever, then your overall happiness actually increases for the duration...
So, owning memories is important.
wait. if were going to argue the finer points of 'ownership' then why not clear up the definition of 'you' first? :lol:
Money will not buy happiness is rather vague. If happiness is being able to do for your family, even in the most basic way, then the possibility certainly is there. By tasking this to the extremes of the base jumping example you are ignoring the majority of the population of the world.
If I can meet my monthly obligations and have food on the table I find myself very satisfied.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 29, 2011, 05:33:51 PM
I am saying that you can find ways to experience happiness even if you're poor, even if you live in a shitty system.
Nowhere did I say that poor people choose to be poor.
I thought it was an interesting discussion, but you seem hell bent on making it into a personal issue.
*shrug*
It's not personal. I am arguing against what you are saying, not against your validity as a human being.
Your argument seems to be boiling down to "if you're not happy, you're not trying hard enough" and I think that's incredibly naive and oversimplistic.
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 05:37:55 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on September 29, 2011, 05:33:51 PM
I am saying that you can find ways to experience happiness even if you're poor, even if you live in a shitty system.
Nowhere did I say that poor people choose to be poor.
I thought it was an interesting discussion, but you seem hell bent on making it into a personal issue.
*shrug*
It's not personal. I am arguing against what you are saying, not against your validity as a human being.
Your argument seems to be boiling down to "if you're not happy, you're not trying hard enough" and I think that's incredibly naive and oversimplistic.
You can be free regardless of circumstances, but sometimes it is impossible to be happy.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 29, 2011, 05:40:21 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 05:37:55 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on September 29, 2011, 05:33:51 PM
I am saying that you can find ways to experience happiness even if you're poor, even if you live in a shitty system.
Nowhere did I say that poor people choose to be poor.
I thought it was an interesting discussion, but you seem hell bent on making it into a personal issue.
*shrug*
It's not personal. I am arguing against what you are saying, not against your validity as a human being.
Your argument seems to be boiling down to "if you're not happy, you're not trying hard enough" and I think that's incredibly naive and oversimplistic.
You can be free regardless of circumstances, but sometimes it is impossible to be happy.
Right now I don't feel that I am free. I do however have plans, and the prospect of those plans is bringing me some happiness. Conversely the potential happiness comes from the prospect that my plans will bring me freedom.
I mean free with a minimum of comfort, not the living under a bridge kind.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 29, 2011, 03:07:00 PM
Quote from: The Rev on September 29, 2011, 02:53:52 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 29, 2011, 07:42:14 AM
I guess in a lot of ways in the discussion we're having here it's worth rememberig that ownership is not physical or objective. I feel like I own more than many of you. I own my time; I rent t to the government for money and favors. I own my house (it's rented) so far as it represents my needs and I have possenrion of it by being in it. I own my thoughts; even if they're derivative of other things, a person with only sprout al thought is, you know, detached from reality, and I tend to know who I want to let in or not.
To own something, you decide to feel as though you own it.
Of course, this is not the case in the legal sense of the OP.
If you weren't renting your time in exchange for money and favors, how would you eat and retain possession of the house? To me, ownership of your house is physical, to a degree. While it will never be completely owned, just unencumbered by a mortgage possibly, fail to pay your annual rent to the government and see exactly what you own.
Renting your time for money and favors reeks of prostitution. 8) Don't misunderstand me, to have comforts it has to be done, but thinking you own your time sounds, to me, like denial of reality.
This whole thing seems completely fucking stupid. If I buy a phone and it spams me and breaks and cuts out and is generally a piece of shit, it is STILL MY PHONE.
If my time is used doing stuff that other people want me to do, even if my job sucks, I still own my time.
If I have to put my elbow on my nose to be able to use my phone to call my great aunt Amanda, the phone sucks. BUT IT IS STILL MY PHONE.
If I have to spend my time folding 100 fucking pizza boxes to get paid, well that's a lame way to spend my time. BUT it's a lame way to spend MY TIME.
I'm arguing against the habit of people volunteering away their SENSE OF OWNERSHIP by deciding that things that aren't working for them simply AREN'T THEIRS. Yes, you may have a MILLION shitty impositions on your time. BUT you have a million impositions on YOUR TIME, not on your bosses. Unless you want to give it up in your mind.
Talking about Mortgages; well that's where we're leaving the zone of perception reality and moving into the zone of legal realities, which I already pointed out I wasn't referring to.
If you can't sell your phone, that is when the question of whether or not it is really your phone becomes an issue. Or if you can't share it, or take it apart and try to figure out how it works.
You certainly do not own any music that might happen to be on your phone, or on a CD in your home for that matter. You also don't own the apps on the phone.
Quote from: The Rev on September 29, 2011, 05:31:19 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 29, 2011, 05:02:13 PM
Hey, stop knocking my extremely priviledged worldview!
:p
Anyway, it's sounding like The Rev has the notion that the perfect state of being is a hedonistic, "do as you please" series of behaviors 100% of the time. He neglects to notice that this state of being has never existed, at any point in time.
Life is hard work, even for us rich white men.
And, as an aside, I should point out that the most fun and joy I have is entirely free of monetary cost. I have things, and they make me comfortable, but they don't make me happy.
No. No. No.
The point is that what many of the things we call choices are not choices, but driven by necessity. Within those necessities lie certain choices, but the choices are still being driven by some external force.
So a choice is a choice, except when it's between a good option and a bad one?
And OHGODOHGOD any moment now somebody's going to say the words F--- W--- and then we're ALL fucked.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news/economy/poverty_rate_income/index.htm
46.2 million people in the US live below the poverty line.
I want to know when the last time the people ITT talking about "assessment" and "choices" made less than 11k/yr with no one else providing support.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 29, 2011, 05:48:54 PM
Quote from: The Rev on September 29, 2011, 05:31:19 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 29, 2011, 05:02:13 PM
Hey, stop knocking my extremely priviledged worldview!
:p
Anyway, it's sounding like The Rev has the notion that the perfect state of being is a hedonistic, "do as you please" series of behaviors 100% of the time. He neglects to notice that this state of being has never existed, at any point in time.
Life is hard work, even for us rich white men.
And, as an aside, I should point out that the most fun and joy I have is entirely free of monetary cost. I have things, and they make me comfortable, but they don't make me happy.
No. No. No.
The point is that what many of the things we call choices are not choices, but driven by necessity. Within those necessities lie certain choices, but the choices are still being driven by some external force.
So a choice is a choice, except when it's between a good option and a bad one?
And OHGODOHGOD any moment now somebody's going to say the words F--- W--- and then we're ALL fucked.
Where did I say that?
Your last sentence adds what to the conversation?
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 05:31:08 PM
Quote from: kingyak on September 29, 2011, 05:27:01 PM
In my experience, moving closer to the middle actually gives you less ability to control where you want to be one the spectrum. Most shitty jobs, in part because they're shitty, offer a lot of flexibility as to how much you work, especially if you're good at the job. And if a shitty job doesn't allow you the flexibility you need, it's usually not hard to move on to another shitty job (well, maybe not these days, but up until recently). More "respectable" jobs almost all require that you trade away a minimum of 40 hours a week, during specified times, and sometimes require you to make lifestyle adjustments (you need to follow the dress code, be able to pass the drug test, get a haircut, whatever) in return for the paycheck. When I drove a cab, I could work 2 or 3 days a week if I wanted, as long as I was willing to deal with the consequences (eating once a day, not being able to do anything that cost money, occasionally getting utilities shut off because I misjudged how much I'd make on the nights I worked), and there were a lot of times when I did just that to so I could work on personal projects. Now that I have a "real" job, I don't have that option. I'm expected to be here 40 hours a week even if I'd rather have the time to myself instead of the money.
It's not so much "get a better job, you bum." More "re-assess what constitutes 'necessity.'"
But that assessment only works if you have a certain amount of leeway to begin with.
If you are a young single person, it's not that hard to survive on a shitty part-time job. Add kids to the equation and see what happens. And don't give me some facile solution like "then don't have kids" because that's glib bullshit.
Not so bad in the US currently, we still have a fairly robust welfare system.
I doubt that will continue much longer, but it is the case at the moment.
Housing codes, BTW, have a huge impact on the choices poor people make. A certain standard of living is now LEGISLATED in most areas of the US. They may have been implemented for very good reasons, but now, the legal choices are to live in a home that is to code, or not to live in a home at all. Portland had the hardest time establishing a fucking tent city because it's "not to code". In other words, the government would rather have people dying under bridges (where it is still illegal for them to be) than living in an unsightly tin shed. So these "choices" really become a matter of life or death. Can't afford your electric bill? It gets cut off, now requires paying the back bill plus a $100 deposit to get them turned on again. DHS takes your kids away because it's illegal to have kids in a home without electricity or heat. Landlord finds out you are living without electricity, evicts you.
Oh noes, you are living under a bridge!
Why aren't you happy? You must not did try hard enough!
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 05:48:54 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news/economy/poverty_rate_income/index.htm
46.2 million people in the US live below the poverty line.
I want to know when the last time the people ITT talking about "assessment" and "choices" made less than 11k/yr with no one else providing support.
OK well that's me.
I'm just trying to make a semantic point.
If you have more than one option, there's a choice. Even if its "Do this or die." I really don't care about this whole point, it's neutral to me. A "do or die" choice is still a choice to me, but all the arguments you make about how terrible it it, well, I agree. And that's the only point I care to make on that.
The point I care about is taking something nonphysical like 'your time' and saying is doesn't belong to you. I think it's a stupid way to look at it. I don't call a right or wrong here, because let's face it, you can't touch the time or prove ownership. But it feels like giving away your power to say 'my boss OWNS my time.'
I guess again, it's a semantic point but if I was in such a challenging situation I still wouldn't say 'I don't own my own time.' It feels too disempowering. 'I'm forced to use all my time fighting to survive, instead of enjoying my life.' Sure. And that's fucked, and a systematic failure. BUT still, I am forced to spend all MY time working a shitty job. I can't understand the eagerness ITT to claim that one has no claim to their own time.
For the record, I've not been on such a low wage.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on September 29, 2011, 05:52:31 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 05:31:08 PM
Quote from: kingyak on September 29, 2011, 05:27:01 PM
In my experience, moving closer to the middle actually gives you less ability to control where you want to be one the spectrum. Most shitty jobs, in part because they're shitty, offer a lot of flexibility as to how much you work, especially if you're good at the job. And if a shitty job doesn't allow you the flexibility you need, it's usually not hard to move on to another shitty job (well, maybe not these days, but up until recently). More "respectable" jobs almost all require that you trade away a minimum of 40 hours a week, during specified times, and sometimes require you to make lifestyle adjustments (you need to follow the dress code, be able to pass the drug test, get a haircut, whatever) in return for the paycheck. When I drove a cab, I could work 2 or 3 days a week if I wanted, as long as I was willing to deal with the consequences (eating once a day, not being able to do anything that cost money, occasionally getting utilities shut off because I misjudged how much I'd make on the nights I worked), and there were a lot of times when I did just that to so I could work on personal projects. Now that I have a "real" job, I don't have that option. I'm expected to be here 40 hours a week even if I'd rather have the time to myself instead of the money.
It's not so much "get a better job, you bum." More "re-assess what constitutes 'necessity.'"
But that assessment only works if you have a certain amount of leeway to begin with.
If you are a young single person, it's not that hard to survive on a shitty part-time job. Add kids to the equation and see what happens. And don't give me some facile solution like "then don't have kids" because that's glib bullshit.
Not so bad in the US currently, we still have a fairly robust welfare system.
I doubt that will continue much longer, but it is the case at the moment.
It doesn't if you don't have an address.
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 05:31:08 PM
But that assessment only works if you have a certain amount of leeway to begin with.
If you are a young single person, it's not that hard to survive on a shitty part-time job. Add kids to the equation and see what happens. And don't give me some facile solution like "then don't have kids" because that's glib bullshit.
You have to create that leeway for yourself (just to clarify here, the last three years are the first time in my life--including when I was growing up--that my income's broken the poverty level), and usually that means lowering your comfort level far below what most people would deem acceptable (a kerosine heater and a sun shower eliminate the gas bill as long as you don't mind the fumes and cold showers on cloudy days).
And I'll completely give you that it's much easier if you're single, but I don't see how "don't have kids" qualifies as "don't have bullshit." With birth control as easily available as it is, having children is a choice. If the responsibilities of raising a kid are going to detract from your happiness more than having them will add to it, you should probably choose not to have them.
I'm completely on board with you about the fact that most middle-class and better people simply don't understand the opportunity costs of being poor (in fact, I'm usually pointing out many of the same things you're saying in discussions like these, just in a different context), but poverty does not remove all control over your own life.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 29, 2011, 05:58:31 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 05:48:54 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news/economy/poverty_rate_income/index.htm
46.2 million people in the US live below the poverty line.
I want to know when the last time the people ITT talking about "assessment" and "choices" made less than 11k/yr with no one else providing support.
OK well that's me.
I'm just trying to make a semantic point.
If you have more than one option, there's a choice. Even if its "Do this or die." I really don't care about this whole point, it's neutral to me. A "do or die" choice is still a choice to me, but all the arguments you make about how terrible it it, well, I agree. And that's the only point I care to make on that.
The point I care about is taking something nonphysical like 'your time' and saying is doesn't belong to you. I think it's a stupid way to look at it. I don't call a right or wrong here, because let's face it, you can't touch the time or prove ownership. But it feels like giving away your power to say 'my boss OWNS my time.'
I guess again, it's a semantic point but if I was in such a challenging situation I still wouldn't say 'I don't own my own time.' It feels too disempowering. 'I'm forced to use all my time fighting to survive, instead of enjoying my life.' Sure. And that's fucked, and a systematic failure. BUT still, I am forced to spend all MY time working a shitty job. I can't understand the eagerness ITT to claim that one has no claim to their own time.
For the record, I've not been on such a low wage.
So it's a pointless semantic argument just for the sake of arguing pointless semantics? OK then.
So, let's just go with "you can't own time". Back to the OP. What DO you own?
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 05:48:54 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news/economy/poverty_rate_income/index.htm
46.2 million people in the US live below the poverty line.
I want to know when the last time the people ITT talking about "assessment" and "choices" made less than 11k/yr with no one else providing support.
From 1998-2008, give or take a few thousand in any particular year (I averaged anywhere from $700-$1000/month).
Quote from: kingyak on September 29, 2011, 05:59:01 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 05:31:08 PM
But that assessment only works if you have a certain amount of leeway to begin with.
If you are a young single person, it's not that hard to survive on a shitty part-time job. Add kids to the equation and see what happens. And don't give me some facile solution like "then don't have kids" because that's glib bullshit.
You have to create that leeway for yourself (just to clarify here, the last three years are the first time in my life--including when I was growing up--that my income's broken the poverty level), and usually that means lowering your comfort level far below what most people would deem acceptable (a kerosine heater and a sun shower eliminate the gas bill as long as you don't mind the fumes and cold showers on cloudy days).
And I'll completely give you that it's much easier if you're single, but I don't see how "don't have kids" qualifies as "don't have bullshit." With birth control as easily available as it is, having children is a choice. If the responsibilities of raising a kid are going to detract from your happiness more than having them will add to it, you should probably choose not to have them.
I'm completely on board with you about the fact that most middle-class and better people simply don't understand the opportunity costs of being poor (in fact, I'm usually pointing out many of the same things you're saying in discussions like these, just in a different context), but poverty does not remove all control over your own life.
A kerosene heater and sun showers in an apartment? Do you even have any idea what you're talking about? 1. Illegal as fuck, you WILL be evicted if your landlord finds out, and 2. kerosene heaters kill people from carbon monoxide poisoning all the time. WTF, that's completely idiotic.
Kids are (mostly) a choice, until you have them. That's why that argument is facile.
Birth control fails, and abortions aren't free, or even cheap. Sometimes people plan to have kids because they're financially stable, and then they get divorced, and then the economy tanks. Sometimes people simply make bad decisions. Regardless, children are born. What would you do if you knocked someone up? Do you have a choice?
Real life happens. When you see poverty increase, that means that people who were not in poverty before have entered it.
Quote from: kingyak on September 29, 2011, 06:05:06 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 05:48:54 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news/economy/poverty_rate_income/index.htm
46.2 million people in the US live below the poverty line.
I want to know when the last time the people ITT talking about "assessment" and "choices" made less than 11k/yr with no one else providing support.
From 1998-2008, give or take a few thousand in any particular year (I averaged anywhere from $700-$1000/month).
You were living alone, with no financial input from anyone else?
BTW, nobody said that poverty "removes all control" from your own life. It simply reduces it significantly.
EVERYTIME I TRY TO SAY SOMETHING SOMEBODY ELSE POSTS INSTEAD! IT'S LIKE REAL LIFE :argh!:
Quote from: The Rev on September 29, 2011, 05:52:21 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 29, 2011, 05:48:54 PM
Quote from: The Rev on September 29, 2011, 05:31:19 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 29, 2011, 05:02:13 PM
Hey, stop knocking my extremely priviledged worldview!
:p
Anyway, it's sounding like The Rev has the notion that the perfect state of being is a hedonistic, "do as you please" series of behaviors 100% of the time. He neglects to notice that this state of being has never existed, at any point in time.
Life is hard work, even for us rich white men.
And, as an aside, I should point out that the most fun and joy I have is entirely free of monetary cost. I have things, and they make me comfortable, but they don't make me happy.
No. No. No.
The point is that what many of the things we call choices are not choices, but driven by necessity. Within those necessities lie certain choices, but the choices are still being driven by some external force.
So a choice is a choice, except when it's between a good option and a bad one?
And OHGODOHGOD any moment now somebody's going to say the words F--- W--- and then we're ALL fucked.
Where did I say that?
Your last sentence adds what to the conversation?
One of my first threads was about those dreaded words in the last sentence. It was a bloodbath. So I guess... I was making a funny? Also, we're in the terrortory of 'when is a choice not a choice' whih is when these kind of 'will' issues come up.
Anyway, I think I made my point clearly replying to Nigel but again; To eat, or not to eat is a choice. Even if one option is shithouse. So if you can't agree to that, then we perceive 'choices' differently, and that's OK, but this conversation has nowhere else to go.
QuoteIf you can't sell your phone, that is when the question of whether or not it is really your phone becomes an issue. Or if you can't share it, or take it apart and try to figure out how it works.
You certainly do not own any music that might happen to be on your phone, or on a CD in your home for that matter. You also don't own the apps on the phone.
I made it pretty clear I'm not talking about ownership under law. But that's interesting enough in its own way.
QuoteSo it's a pointless semantic argument just for the sake of arguing pointless semantics? OK then.
It may be pointless to you. The topic of 'who owns your time' came up, and to me the way we choose to view this is extremely important.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 29, 2011, 06:11:40 PM
EVERYTIME I TRY TO SAY SOMETHING SOMEBODY ELSE POSTS INSTEAD! IT'S LIKE REAL LIFE :argh!:
Quote from: The Rev on September 29, 2011, 05:52:21 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 29, 2011, 05:48:54 PM
Quote from: The Rev on September 29, 2011, 05:31:19 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 29, 2011, 05:02:13 PM
Hey, stop knocking my extremely priviledged worldview!
:p
Anyway, it's sounding like The Rev has the notion that the perfect state of being is a hedonistic, "do as you please" series of behaviors 100% of the time. He neglects to notice that this state of being has never existed, at any point in time.
Life is hard work, even for us rich white men.
And, as an aside, I should point out that the most fun and joy I have is entirely free of monetary cost. I have things, and they make me comfortable, but they don't make me happy.
No. No. No.
The point is that what many of the things we call choices are not choices, but driven by necessity. Within those necessities lie certain choices, but the choices are still being driven by some external force.
So a choice is a choice, except when it's between a good option and a bad one?
And OHGODOHGOD any moment now somebody's going to say the words F--- W--- and then we're ALL fucked.
Where did I say that?
Your last sentence adds what to the conversation?
One of my first threads was about those dreaded words in the last sentence. It was a bloodbath. So I guess... I was making a funny? Also, we're in the terrortory of 'when is a choice not a choice' whih is when these kind of 'will' issues come up.
Anyway, I think I made my point clearly replying to Nigel but again; To eat, or not to eat is a choice. Even if one option is shithouse. So if you can't agree to that, then we perceive 'choices' differently, and that's OK, but this conversation has nowhere else to go.
QuoteIf you can't sell your phone, that is when the question of whether or not it is really your phone becomes an issue. Or if you can't share it, or take it apart and try to figure out how it works.
You certainly do not own any music that might happen to be on your phone, or on a CD in your home for that matter. You also don't own the apps on the phone.
QuoteSo it's a pointless semantic argument just for the sake of arguing pointless semantics? OK then.
It may be pointless to you. The topic of 'who owns your time' came up, and to me the way we choose to view this is extremely important.
I think the problem is you are confusing your perceptions with reality. I can have the perception that I am the king of the world, and that perception has absolutely no impact on reality. (See barstool theory)
So I subjectively own my own time and you objectively own yours. Settled.
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 05:58:42 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on September 29, 2011, 05:52:31 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 05:31:08 PM
Quote from: kingyak on September 29, 2011, 05:27:01 PM
In my experience, moving closer to the middle actually gives you less ability to control where you want to be one the spectrum. Most shitty jobs, in part because they're shitty, offer a lot of flexibility as to how much you work, especially if you're good at the job. And if a shitty job doesn't allow you the flexibility you need, it's usually not hard to move on to another shitty job (well, maybe not these days, but up until recently). More "respectable" jobs almost all require that you trade away a minimum of 40 hours a week, during specified times, and sometimes require you to make lifestyle adjustments (you need to follow the dress code, be able to pass the drug test, get a haircut, whatever) in return for the paycheck. When I drove a cab, I could work 2 or 3 days a week if I wanted, as long as I was willing to deal with the consequences (eating once a day, not being able to do anything that cost money, occasionally getting utilities shut off because I misjudged how much I'd make on the nights I worked), and there were a lot of times when I did just that to so I could work on personal projects. Now that I have a "real" job, I don't have that option. I'm expected to be here 40 hours a week even if I'd rather have the time to myself instead of the money.
It's not so much "get a better job, you bum." More "re-assess what constitutes 'necessity.'"
But that assessment only works if you have a certain amount of leeway to begin with.
If you are a young single person, it's not that hard to survive on a shitty part-time job. Add kids to the equation and see what happens. And don't give me some facile solution like "then don't have kids" because that's glib bullshit.
Not so bad in the US currently, we still have a fairly robust welfare system.
I doubt that will continue much longer, but it is the case at the moment.
It doesn't if you don't have an address.
I'd be shocked to discover that Oregon is doing worse than Ohio in that respect and here if you have children and do not have a home, or cannot afford one, you can live in government subsidized housing, thus getting an address.
There are some restrictions on who can get in, and there is a waiting list, but it's not that long, and aside from the requirement of children the restrictions have to do with drug sales, so if you haven't been convicted of selling drugs you're alright.
Mind you it's not a nice place, and you have to put in nearly a full time work week to qualify for the benefits (that covers medicaid and food stamps too though) but it is a roof over your head and an address so that you can qualify for medicaid and food stamps.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on September 29, 2011, 06:23:11 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 05:58:42 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on September 29, 2011, 05:52:31 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 05:31:08 PM
Quote from: kingyak on September 29, 2011, 05:27:01 PM
In my experience, moving closer to the middle actually gives you less ability to control where you want to be one the spectrum. Most shitty jobs, in part because they're shitty, offer a lot of flexibility as to how much you work, especially if you're good at the job. And if a shitty job doesn't allow you the flexibility you need, it's usually not hard to move on to another shitty job (well, maybe not these days, but up until recently). More "respectable" jobs almost all require that you trade away a minimum of 40 hours a week, during specified times, and sometimes require you to make lifestyle adjustments (you need to follow the dress code, be able to pass the drug test, get a haircut, whatever) in return for the paycheck. When I drove a cab, I could work 2 or 3 days a week if I wanted, as long as I was willing to deal with the consequences (eating once a day, not being able to do anything that cost money, occasionally getting utilities shut off because I misjudged how much I'd make on the nights I worked), and there were a lot of times when I did just that to so I could work on personal projects. Now that I have a "real" job, I don't have that option. I'm expected to be here 40 hours a week even if I'd rather have the time to myself instead of the money.
It's not so much "get a better job, you bum." More "re-assess what constitutes 'necessity.'"
But that assessment only works if you have a certain amount of leeway to begin with.
If you are a young single person, it's not that hard to survive on a shitty part-time job. Add kids to the equation and see what happens. And don't give me some facile solution like "then don't have kids" because that's glib bullshit.
Not so bad in the US currently, we still have a fairly robust welfare system.
I doubt that will continue much longer, but it is the case at the moment.
It doesn't if you don't have an address.
I'd be shocked to discover that Oregon is doing worse than Ohio in that respect and here if you have children and do not have a home, or cannot afford one, you can live in government subsidized housing, thus getting an address.
There are some restrictions on who can get in, and there is a waiting list, but it's not that long, and aside from the requirement of children the restrictions have to do with drug sales, so if you haven't been convicted of selling drugs you're alright.
Mind you it's not a nice place, and you have to put in nearly a full time work week to qualify for the benefits (that covers medicaid and food stamps too though) but it is a roof over your head and an address so that you can qualify for medicaid and food stamps.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA
Wait
You're talking about OREGON, right? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA
Yes, honey, that's why Oregon doesn't have any homeless people. :lol:
As an aside, one of the things I find troubling about your input in this thread is that you act as if being on welfare is somehow not the very thing so many people are fighting to avoid.
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 06:07:08 PM
A kerosene heater and sun showers in an apartment? Do you even have any idea what you're talking about? 1. Illegal as fuck, you WILL be evicted if your landlord finds out, and 2. kerosene heaters kill people from carbon monoxide poisoning all the time. WTF, that's completely idiotic.
A house, actually. In this case I know exactly what I'm talking about because I did it for about 4 months (January-March, if memory serves) because paying the $800 to get the gas turned back on would have meant giving up things I wanted more (and even if I'd cut those out, I still would have to live without gas for at least a couple months, so I hoped for the winter to stay mild and started trying to put back enough to turn the gas back on before next fall). I CHOSE to risk the landlord finding out and evicting me (fortunately low-risk in my case, since the landlord was absentee and I CHOSE to risk carbon monoxide (thought did keep a window cracked to cut down on the risk). Not a good choice, or a legal one, a smart one, or one I'd likely make again, but still a choice.
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 06:07:08 PM
Kids are (mostly) a choice, until you have them. That's why that argument is facile.
Birth control fails, and abortions aren't free, or even cheap. Sometimes people plan to have kids because they're financially stable, and then they get divorced, and then the economy tanks. Sometimes people simply make bad decisions. Regardless, children are born. What would you do if you knocked someone up? Do you have a choice?
But there's still a choice there. Even in the case of failed birth control, there was still a choice to have sex knowing that birth control isn't 100% effective. I'd prefer a world with universal healthcare and a scientific understanding of abortion as a backup plan for when a condom breaks, but until we get that you have to accept that having sex could lead to having a child. The only time a child is not in any way a choice is in cases of rape.
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 06:07:08 PM
Real life happens. When you see poverty increase, that means that people who were not in poverty before have entered it.
No argument with you there, but you equate bad shit happening to a total loss of control, you're buying into the "victim mentality" that the well-off like to believe affects everyone lower on the spectrum than them.
I would say that "losing your home and everything you own, and moving into temporary subsidized housing" qualifies as "not owning anything", though. I mean, it's a step up from losing your kids and living on the street, which happens to altogether too many people, but it's still pretty much an all-around totally shitty situation.
http://news.opb.org/article/number-homeless-families-oregon-increases/
Oh, and here's a bit about our homeless camp: http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2011/06/portland_extends_contract_for.html
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 06:08:13 PM
You were living alone, with no financial input from anyone else?
Until the last 6 months, when I moved in with a friend to save $50/month on rent.
Quote from: kingyak on September 29, 2011, 06:38:43 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 06:07:08 PM
A kerosene heater and sun showers in an apartment? Do you even have any idea what you're talking about? 1. Illegal as fuck, you WILL be evicted if your landlord finds out, and 2. kerosene heaters kill people from carbon monoxide poisoning all the time. WTF, that's completely idiotic.
A house, actually. In this case I know exactly what I'm talking about because I did it for about 4 months (January-March, if memory serves) because paying the $800 to get the gas turned back on would have meant giving up things I wanted more (and even if I'd cut those out, I still would have to live without gas for at least a couple months, so I hoped for the winter to stay mild and started trying to put back enough to turn the gas back on before next fall). I CHOSE to risk the landlord finding out and evicting me (fortunately low-risk in my case, since the landlord was absentee and I CHOSE to risk carbon monoxide (thought did keep a window cracked to cut down on the risk). Not a good choice, or a legal one, a smart one, or one I'd likely make again, but still a choice.
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 06:07:08 PM
Kids are (mostly) a choice, until you have them. That's why that argument is facile.
Birth control fails, and abortions aren't free, or even cheap. Sometimes people plan to have kids because they're financially stable, and then they get divorced, and then the economy tanks. Sometimes people simply make bad decisions. Regardless, children are born. What would you do if you knocked someone up? Do you have a choice?
But there's still a choice there. Even in the case of failed birth control, there was still a choice to have sex knowing that birth control isn't 100% effective. I'd prefer a world with universal healthcare and a scientific understanding of abortion as a backup plan for when a condom breaks, but until we get that you have to accept that having sex could lead to having a child. The only time a child is not in any way a choice is in cases of rape.
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 06:07:08 PM
Real life happens. When you see poverty increase, that means that people who were not in poverty before have entered it.
No argument with you there, but you equate bad shit happening to a total loss of control, you're buying into the "victim mentality" that the well-off like to believe affects everyone lower on the spectrum than them.
Are you saying that accepting reality is playing to the victim mentality? If so, then I completely disagree with you.
Quote from: The Rev on September 29, 2011, 05:31:19 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 29, 2011, 05:02:13 PM
Hey, stop knocking my extremely priviledged worldview!
:p
Anyway, it's sounding like The Rev has the notion that the perfect state of being is a hedonistic, "do as you please" series of behaviors 100% of the time. He neglects to notice that this state of being has never existed, at any point in time.
Life is hard work, even for us rich white men.
And, as an aside, I should point out that the most fun and joy I have is entirely free of monetary cost. I have things, and they make me comfortable, but they don't make me happy.
No. No. No.
The point is that what many of the things we call choices are not choices, but driven by necessity. Within those necessities lie certain choices, but the choices are still being driven by some external force.
Hold the phone.
Your entire thesis is, "I can't do what I want, because reality is in the way"?
:weary:
Chapter 5
Life is unfair, wear a helmet. The wise spag wears a helmet, but also drops hammers.
Anything could be a punchline.
Even the wise spag gets punched.
Chaos never ends!
Even its vacuum has a presence.
To struggle against it
is like pissing in the wind.
Bolded for emphasis.
Quote from: kingyak on September 29, 2011, 06:38:43 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 06:07:08 PM
A kerosene heater and sun showers in an apartment? Do you even have any idea what you're talking about? 1. Illegal as fuck, you WILL be evicted if your landlord finds out, and 2. kerosene heaters kill people from carbon monoxide poisoning all the time. WTF, that's completely idiotic.
A house, actually. In this case I know exactly what I'm talking about because I did it for about 4 months (January-March, if memory serves) because paying the $800 to get the gas turned back on would have meant giving up things I wanted more (and even if I'd cut those out, I still would have to live without gas for at least a couple months, so I hoped for the winter to stay mild and started trying to put back enough to turn the gas back on before next fall). I CHOSE to risk the landlord finding out and evicting me (fortunately low-risk in my case, since the landlord was absentee and I CHOSE to risk carbon monoxide (thought did keep a window cracked to cut down on the risk). Not a good choice, or a legal one, a smart one, or one I'd likely make again, but still a choice.
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 06:07:08 PM
Kids are (mostly) a choice, until you have them. That's why that argument is facile.
Birth control fails, and abortions aren't free, or even cheap. Sometimes people plan to have kids because they're financially stable, and then they get divorced, and then the economy tanks. Sometimes people simply make bad decisions. Regardless, children are born. What would you do if you knocked someone up? Do you have a choice?
But there's still a choice there. Even in the case of failed birth control, there was still a choice to have sex knowing that birth control isn't 100% effective. I'd prefer a world with universal healthcare and a scientific understanding of abortion as a backup plan for when a condom breaks, but until we get that you have to accept that having sex could lead to having a child. The only time a child is not in any way a choice is in cases of rape.
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 06:07:08 PM
Real life happens. When you see poverty increase, that means that people who were not in poverty before have entered it.
No argument with you there, but you equate bad shit happening to a total loss of control, you're buying into the "victim mentality" that the well-off like to believe affects everyone lower on the spectrum than them.
As I said before, 1. Once kids happen, you have 'em. Are you celibate? Because if you're not celibate, then you are, by your own logic, making the choice to have children. Furthermore, rape removes that choice from many women. Are you going to argue that "there are programs for that"? :lol:
and 2. NOBODY except for you has introduced the idea that poverty removes choice entirely. It, as I said before and you have chosen to disregard, severely restricts choice.
I do not have a victim mentality, I can assure you of that. But I have been impoverished, I have physical marks of childhood malnourishment, I have lived in abominable conditions, and I am keenly aware of the advantages that I have which resulted in coming out of poverty. Many of which advantages others are not privy to.
You seem to have a fairly common "If I did it, so can anyone" outlook, which is erroneous thinking because it assumes that anyone who is impoverished has the same set of opportunities and circumstances. Try a mental flexibility exercise; think to yourself "what if I hadn't been able..." about certain of the options you had, like using a kerosene heater. Imagine some of the reasons that wouldn't have been possible in other circumstances.
Quote from: kingyak on September 29, 2011, 06:41:13 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 06:08:13 PM
You were living alone, with no financial input from anyone else?
Until the last 6 months, when I moved in with a friend to save $50/month on rent.
Well aren't you quite the virtuous virgin.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 29, 2011, 06:52:44 PM
Quote from: The Rev on September 29, 2011, 05:31:19 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 29, 2011, 05:02:13 PM
Hey, stop knocking my extremely priviledged worldview!
:p
Anyway, it's sounding like The Rev has the notion that the perfect state of being is a hedonistic, "do as you please" series of behaviors 100% of the time. He neglects to notice that this state of being has never existed, at any point in time.
Life is hard work, even for us rich white men.
And, as an aside, I should point out that the most fun and joy I have is entirely free of monetary cost. I have things, and they make me comfortable, but they don't make me happy.
No. No. No.
The point is that what many of the things we call choices are not choices, but driven by necessity. Within those necessities lie certain choices, but the choices are still being driven by some external force.
Hold the phone.
Your entire thesis is, "I can't do what I want, because reality is in the way"?
:weary:
Chapter 5
Life is unfair, wear a helmet.
The wise spag wears a helmet, but also drops hammers.
Anything could be a punchline.
Even the wise spag gets punched.
Chaos never ends!
Even its vacuum has a presence.
To struggle against it
is like pissing in the wind.
Bolded for emphasis.
I REALLY don't think that's what he's getting at. And if you are saying what you seem to be saying, it's just more entitled bullcrap that passes judgement on people who aren't doing as well as you are.
Quote from: The Rev on September 29, 2011, 06:43:09 PM
Are you saying that accepting reality is playing to the victim mentality? If so, then I completely disagree with you.
No, I'm saying that claiming that reality removes all of your choices is playing into the victim mentality. There are always choices. The less money you have, the more the available choices suck (and I fully advocate society doing everything possible to alleviate that suck), but you can always choose to do something else if you think it'll suck less.
I think what I'm trying to say is that I haven't been in real poverty ever, and I haven't been in faux poverty for decades, but even when bio survival is accounted for, I still experience life as hard work, in terms of reaching my joy.
You might consider that rich-boy entitlement, but I see it as that which Rev wants, never has existed.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 29, 2011, 07:01:36 PM
I think what I'm trying to say is that I haven't been in real poverty ever, and I haven't been in faux poverty for decades, but even when bio survival is accounted for, I still experience life as hard work, in terms of reaching my joy.
You might consider that rich-boy entitlement, but I see it as that which Rev wants, never has existed.
Life is hard and unfair. Some people have more luxuries than others, including the luxury of purely human pursuits.
My take on what Rev was getting at is that until basic needs are met, you can't even start on "happiness", and the current system is increasingly designed to make it more difficult for more people to have their basic needs met, at least with any semblance of security.
What is happiness, anyway? It's certainly not something we have an automatic right to.
The luxury to pursue your own interests is truly a valuable thing, and the more you have of it, the more time you have to spend inventing your own unhappiness. Some people have more of that luxury than others. It's not tied to money, other than as a construct of society (one which is very difficult to escape). It's tied fairly directly to security, whether that security is owning a shack and a garden outright, or having ample income to lease a condo.
It's always been interesting to me that many of the people I know who have the most subjective difficulty navigating life are the people who have had, relatively speaking, the easiest lives. I feel sorry for them, in a way, because it seems like they are unable to appreciate what they have, and also sorry for them because it seems as if, should things actually become hard for them, they would simply die.
Quote from: kingyak on September 29, 2011, 07:01:16 PM
Quote from: The Rev on September 29, 2011, 06:43:09 PM
Are you saying that accepting reality is playing to the victim mentality? If so, then I completely disagree with you.
No, I'm saying that claiming that reality removes all of your choices is playing into the victim mentality. There are always choices. The less money you have, the more the available choices suck (and I fully advocate society doing everything possible to alleviate that suck), but you can always choose to do something else if you think it'll suck less.
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 06:53:40 PM
and 2. NOBODY except for you has introduced the idea that poverty removes choice entirely. It, as I said before and you have chosen to disregard, severely restricts choice.
My husband has a saying: "This must be a problem of the well-fed."
Quote from: Jenne on September 29, 2011, 07:17:14 PM
My husband has a saying: "This must be a problem of the well-fed."
:lulz: First world problems!
I wanted to mention that, upthread, there seemed to be significant conflation of "happiness" with "fun". It's an interesting conflation, because you can have happiness without fun, and unhappy people are still capable of having fun, although the rush of happiness chemicals associated with fun is usually short-lived in otherwise unhappy people.
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 06:53:40 PM
As I said before, 1. Once kids happen, you have 'em. Are you celibate? Because if you're not celibate, then you are, by your own logic, making the choice to have children. Furthermore, rape removes that choice from many women. Are you going to argue that "there are programs for that"? :lol:
Even once you have kids, you do have the option of giving them up (not an easy choice in most cases, but a choice). More celibate than I want to be, but not entirely, and I accept that it could lead to children. As for rape, my argument is "I wish there were programs for that."
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 06:53:40 PM
and 2. NOBODY except for you has introduced the idea that poverty removes choice entirely. It, as I said before and you have chosen to disregard, severely restricts choice.
Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by:
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 06:53:40 PM
But that assessment only works if you have a certain amount of leeway to begin with.
If so, I apologize.
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 06:53:40 PM
I do not have a victim mentality, I can assure you of that. But I have been impoverished, I have physical marks of childhood malnourishment, I have lived in abominable conditions, and I am keenly aware of the advantages that I have which resulted in coming out of poverty. Many of which advantages others are not privy to.
You seem to have a fairly common "If I did it, so can anyone" outlook, which is erroneous thinking because it assumes that anyone who is impoverished has the same set of opportunities and circumstances. Try a mental flexibility exercise; think to yourself "what if I hadn't been able..." about certain of the options you had, like using a kerosene heater. Imagine some of the reasons that wouldn't have been possible in other circumstances.
I think where we're butting heads here is that I never suggested (or meant to suggest) that you have the poverty is a choice and you have the choice to not be poor. I wouldn't suggest that, because it's not true. I was merely saying that you always have a choice of how to deal with a shitty situation. It's usually not a good choice, and in most cases the consequences are worse than the consequences of staying in your current situation, but there is a choice.
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 07:18:46 PM
Quote from: Jenne on September 29, 2011, 07:17:14 PM
My husband has a saying: "This must be a problem of the well-fed."
:lulz: First world problems!
Yes...I think that's what he means by that. :)
Quote from: kingyak on September 29, 2011, 07:23:51 PM
I think where we're butting heads here is that I never suggested (or meant to suggest) that you have the poverty is a choice and you have the choice to not be poor.
I didn't say that because what the fuck does that say?
Let's try:
I think where we're butting heads here is that I never suggested (or meant to suggest) that poverty is a choice and you have the choice to not be poor.
I once read that happiness = the satisfaction of your desires. And boy did I take that shit to heart.
You can get by pretty damned well as a single person with a crap job, especially if you force yourself out of stupid food and entertainment habits. But what does that have to do with happiness? I think that I was an idiot when I read that.
See, you can cut out all the stuff you don't NEED in your life, get by with a smile on your face with the bare minimum of food, shelter, personal belongings. I think in this way you can learn how to be happy with what you have around you, which is a valuable skill no matter how much you have. But the thing is, for most of us, that's a cute little OPTION. Some of us don't get to make that choice.
I guess I could say that I found such thinking comforting since I didn't have much at the time. But, meh. I can't but think that no matter how little I have at any given moment there are millions who would enjoy a fraction of what I have available. So somewhere in there is a flaw.
As for ownership, I was always under the impression you owned what cannot be taken away from you, not without some kind of rightful legal intervention. Anything else seems like wishful thinking.
Quote from: kingyak on September 29, 2011, 07:23:51 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 06:53:40 PM
As I said before, 1. Once kids happen, you have 'em. Are you celibate? Because if you're not celibate, then you are, by your own logic, making the choice to have children. Furthermore, rape removes that choice from many women. Are you going to argue that "there are programs for that"? :lol:
Even once you have kids, you do have the option of giving them up (not an easy choice in most cases, but a choice). More celibate than I want to be, but not entirely, and I accept that it could lead to children. As for rape, my argument is "I wish there were programs for that."
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 06:53:40 PM
and 2. NOBODY except for you has introduced the idea that poverty removes choice entirely. It, as I said before and you have chosen to disregard, severely restricts choice.
Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by:
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 06:53:40 PM
But that assessment only works if you have a certain amount of leeway to begin with.
If so, I apologize.
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 06:53:40 PM
I do not have a victim mentality, I can assure you of that. But I have been impoverished, I have physical marks of childhood malnourishment, I have lived in abominable conditions, and I am keenly aware of the advantages that I have which resulted in coming out of poverty. Many of which advantages others are not privy to.
You seem to have a fairly common "If I did it, so can anyone" outlook, which is erroneous thinking because it assumes that anyone who is impoverished has the same set of opportunities and circumstances. Try a mental flexibility exercise; think to yourself "what if I hadn't been able..." about certain of the options you had, like using a kerosene heater. Imagine some of the reasons that wouldn't have been possible in other circumstances.
I think where we're butting heads here is that I never suggested (or meant to suggest) that you have the poverty is a choice and you have the choice to not be poor. I wouldn't suggest that, because it's not true. I was merely saying that you always have a choice of how to deal with a shitty situation. It's usually not a good choice, and in most cases the consequences are worse than the consequences of staying in your current situation, but there is a choice.
You did misunderstand. The "assessment" of one's life and habits in order to free up leisure time is what I was talking about. It presupposes the existence of luxury amenities which can be disposed of in order to reduce stress and create leisure. You are talking about making survival choices, while I was addressing the assumption that everyone has non-survival, luxury options large enough to make a significant difference in quality of life.
So, by not being celibate, you are essentially choosing to have children. Do you pass judgement on those who have sex but cannot afford to have children?
Quote from: kingyak on September 29, 2011, 07:29:58 PM
Quote from: kingyak on September 29, 2011, 07:23:51 PM
I think where we're butting heads here is that I never suggested (or meant to suggest) that you have the poverty is a choice and you have the choice to not be poor.
I didn't say that because what the fuck does that say?
Let's try:
I think where we're butting heads here is that I never suggested (or meant to suggest) that poverty is a choice and you have the choice to not be poor.
Ah, OK. Because that, along with whether you can choose to be happy when impoverished, is a significant element of the conversation.
Quote from: Alty on September 29, 2011, 07:36:06 PM
I once read that happiness = the satisfaction of your desires. And boy did I take that shit to heart.
You can get by pretty damned well as a single person with a crap job, especially if you force yourself out of stupid food and entertainment habits. But what does that have to do with happiness? I think that I was an idiot when I read that.
See, you can cut out all the stuff you don't NEED in your life, get by with a smile on your face with the bare minimum of food, shelter, personal belongings. I think in this way you can learn how to be happy with what you have around you, which is a valuable skill no matter how much you have. But the thing is, for most of us, that's a cute little OPTION. Some of us don't get to make that choice.
I guess I could say that I found such thinking comforting since I didn't have much at the time. But, meh. I can't but think that no matter how little I have at any given moment there are millions who would enjoy a fraction of what I have available. So somewhere in there is a flaw.
As for ownership, I was always under the impression you owned what cannot be taken away from you, not without some kind of rightful legal intervention. Anything else seems like wishful thinking.
I'm with ya here.
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 08:05:23 PM
You did misunderstand. The "assessment" of one's life and habits in order to free up leisure time is what I was talking about. It presupposes the existence of luxury amenities which can be disposed of in order to reduce stress and create leisure. You are talking about making survival choices, while I was addressing the assumption that everyone has non-survival, luxury options large enough to make a significant difference in quality of life.
Yeah, I guess that my point is that unless you're homeless, you always have the option "dropping out" if you're wiling to trade the security that most people believe is essential for the freedom of not having to work shitty jobs. Blame it on hobomancers.
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 08:05:23 PM
So, by not being celibate, you are essentially choosing to have children. Do you pass judgement on those who have sex but cannot afford to have children?
I'm choosing to accept the responsibility of children (or at least paying for an abortion) if I get someone pregnant. And no, I don't pass judgement on people who have sex but can't afford kids. That's why I mentioned that if I ruled the world birth control and abortions would be free for anyone who wanted them.
Quote from: Alty on September 29, 2011, 07:36:06 PM
But the thing is, for most of us, that's a cute little OPTION. Some of us don't get to make that choice.
I'm with you except for this bit. By choosing not to take the option, you are making a choice. Just because an option is one that most people wouldn't accept doesn't make it any less of an option.
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 08:08:53 PM
Ah, OK. Because that, along with whether you can choose to be happy when impoverished, is a significant element of the conversation.
I think you can always choose to be happy no matter how bad your situation. It's just a lot harder the worse your situation gets.
And I see that thanks to this discussion I can finally see the Mindfuck thread, which was the main reason I signed up over here in the first place. So I just got happiness and all it cost me was my company's time and internet connection (one of the best tips I've found to increase happiness when you work a job you hate is to assess how much work you can blow off and still keep your job as early in the relationship as possible).
Quote from: kingyak on September 29, 2011, 08:30:14 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 08:08:53 PM
Ah, OK. Because that, along with whether you can choose to be happy when impoverished, is a significant element of the conversation.
I think you can always choose to be happy no matter how bad your situation. It's just a lot harder the worse your situation gets.
So, you have entire control over how you react and feel about any given situation, and how long you choose to feel that way?
If that's what you're getting at, ok, yeah. I'm with you. That entire mindset is why I haven't been (generally speaking) unhappy at all since I started really REALLY thinking that way. I've been sad, but that's not the same as being unhappy. And any feelings of being unhappy are usually quickly followed by detailed plans on how to change whatever it is that's making me unhappy.
That was possibly one of the hardest parts of getting out of my early 20's, but it works wonders now.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 29, 2011, 08:37:17 PM
So, you have entire control over how you react and feel about any given situation, and how long you choose to feel that way?
If that's what you're getting at, ok, yeah. I'm with you. That entire mindset is why I haven't been (generally speaking) unhappy at all since I started really REALLY thinking that way. I've been sad, but that's not the same as being unhappy. And any feelings of being unhappy are usually quickly followed by detailed plans on how to change whatever it is that's making me unhappy.
That was possibly one of the hardest parts of getting out of my early 20's, but it works wonders now.
Not complete control, but more control than most people acknowledge they have. A vast majority of most people's unhappiness comes in the form of stress about things that are ultimately meaningless. Knowing that doesn't get rid of the emotional reactions that cause unhappiness, but it makes it a lot easier to keep them from ruining your day.
Quote from: kingyak on September 29, 2011, 08:30:14 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 08:08:53 PM
Ah, OK. Because that, along with whether you can choose to be happy when impoverished, is a significant element of the conversation.
I think you can always choose to be happy no matter how bad your situation. It's just a lot harder the worse your situation gets.
I think you need to read some books on psychology and the biology of stress. Or, possibly, explain your definition of happiness, because I think it differs from mine. Which is, admittedly, science-based, and fuck science.
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 09:21:32 PM
Quote from: kingyak on September 29, 2011, 08:30:14 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 08:08:53 PM
Ah, OK. Because that, along with whether you can choose to be happy when impoverished, is a significant element of the conversation.
I think you can always choose to be happy no matter how bad your situation. It's just a lot harder the worse your situation gets.
I think you need to read some books on psychology and the biology of stress. Or, possibly, explain your definition of happiness, because I think it differs from mine. Which is, admittedly, science-based, and fuck science.
Might be more useful to define happiness.
If you mean "a permanent, perfect state of contentment where everybody sings showtunes and shit smells like daisies" then no, not going to happen no matter what your station in life is.
If you mean "forgetting how much life sucks for a while and enjoying yourself, if only for a little while," then yes.
And again, it's very important to differentiate between survival stress and what most people consider stress. If you're in the process of starving to death, dying from exposure, or bleeding constantly from the eyes, happiness is probably unattainable (at least until the hallucinations set in).
Quote from: kingyak on September 29, 2011, 09:31:48 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 09:21:32 PM
Quote from: kingyak on September 29, 2011, 08:30:14 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 08:08:53 PM
Ah, OK. Because that, along with whether you can choose to be happy when impoverished, is a significant element of the conversation.
I think you can always choose to be happy no matter how bad your situation. It's just a lot harder the worse your situation gets.
I think you need to read some books on psychology and the biology of stress. Or, possibly, explain your definition of happiness, because I think it differs from mine. Which is, admittedly, science-based, and fuck science.
Might be more useful to define happiness.
If you mean "a permanent, perfect state of contentment where everybody sings showtunes and shit smells like daisies" then no, not going to happen no matter what your station in life is.
If you mean "forgetting how much life sucks for a while and enjoying yourself, if only for a little while," then yes.
And again, it's very important to differentiate between survival stress and what most people consider stress. If you're in the process of starving to death, dying from exposure, or bleeding constantly from the eyes, happiness is probably unattainable (at least until the hallucinations set in).
Do you think that people who are depressed from ongoing constant stress related to survival are making a choice to be unhappy?
Wow, this thread really exploded.
I would like to say - all communication happens in a context.
As you're fond of pointing out, Nigel, this is a 'white' board. The people who post here have the luxury of time to piss away on the internet in the comfort of places set up to allow them to do so.
Therefore, my comments on 'choice' were aimed at an audience with that basic level of survival pretty well met. If I'm wrong, and we have a surfeit of people living on or below the poverty line then I'll go back and start qualifying all those statements.
Otherwise, I think the notion of choice and being forced to make decisions is wildly overblown amongst the majority of individuals. It very rarely becomes anything so dramatic as 'I must do X or I will starve', but it is very often used as a trap to stop people start taking decisions that require effort in order to better their lot. That can mean going back to school, or just looking for another job to replace the one they complain about all the time.
I still maintain that believing you have no way to make your life better is ultimately one of the most insidious behaviours that modern society can instil in a person. I think that applies right across the cross-section of society. It is an attitude rather than a situation, and it is a self-defeating one which I despise.
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 09:35:34 PM
Do you think that people who are depressed from ongoing constant stress related to survival are making a choice to be unhappy?
Depends on what you mean by depressed. If you're referring to clinical depression, no. I didn't feel the need to specify "You can always be happy unless you have a psychological condition that prevents you from being happy" for the same reason I wouldn't specify "If you drop something it will always fall to the ground, unless you're in space."
If you're talking about self-pity, then yes.
I think Wilson's "winner scripts" and "loser scripts" apply here.* If you have a "winner script," you can always find some kind of happiness barring exceptional or extreme circumstances. If you have a "loser script," you'll always be unhappy no matter how fortunate you are.
*And I can't believe I'm saying that, because winner/loser scripts are one of R.A.W.'s ideas that I've never been able to fully buy into, since the concept completely ignores economic reality and in some cases (as the depression example illustrates) physical reality.
I somehow missed that bit of RAW, but picked a lot of it up through reading Eric Berne's books. I makes perfect sense now that one influenced the other.
I think I have before, but let me again recommend Scripts People Live and Games People Play. They're much easier to get through than Transactional Analysis, which was written for psych Dr.s. It's a little uncanny how you'll start seeing people do those things in your day to day.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on September 29, 2011, 10:51:38 PM
Wow, this thread really exploded.
I would like to say - all communication happens in a context.
As you're fond of pointing out, Nigel, this is a 'white' board. The people who post here have the luxury of time to piss away on the internet in the comfort of places set up to allow them to do so.
Therefore, my comments on 'choice' were aimed at an audience with that basic level of survival pretty well met. If I'm wrong, and we have a surfeit of people living on or below the poverty line then I'll go back and start qualifying all those statements.
Otherwise, I think the notion of choice and being forced to make decisions is wildly overblown amongst the majority of individuals. It very rarely becomes anything so dramatic as 'I must do X or I will starve', but it is very often used as a trap to stop people start taking decisions that require effort in order to better their lot. That can mean going back to school, or just looking for another job to replace the one they complain about all the time.
I still maintain that believing you have no way to make your life better is ultimately one of the most insidious behaviours that modern society can instil in a person. I think that applies right across the cross-section of society. It is an attitude rather than a situation, and it is a self-defeating one which I despise.
It cuts both ways. You're absolutely right that most people in "first world countries" (and certainly most people who post on internet forums) do have more choices than they acknowledge, but since making those choices would mean rethinking their comfort levels regarding quality of life and security, most people don't consider them real choices.
On the other hand, assuming that there's always an option to improve your life ignores the realities of those who actually do live in poverty. There's a certain point where the need to survive really does physically and mentally prevent you from improving your life. If you're working 2 (or more) jobs to provide food and shelter for your children, you're going to have trouble finding the time to look for a better job, much less train or go to school for a better one, or even use skills you have to supplement your income.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 29, 2011, 11:12:29 PM
I somehow missed that bit of RAW, but picked a lot of it up through reading Eric Berne's books. I makes perfect sense now that one influenced the other.
I think I have before, but let me again recommend Scripts People Live and Games People Play. They're much easier to get through than Transactional Analysis, which was written for psych Dr.s. It's a little uncanny how you'll start seeing people do those things in your day to day.
He hits it in a few different books--I think Prometheus Rising and the Cosmic Trigger series, but it's been a while and he wrote a lot of books, so don't take that as gospel.
Quote from: kingyak on September 29, 2011, 11:15:53 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 29, 2011, 11:12:29 PM
I somehow missed that bit of RAW, but picked a lot of it up through reading Eric Berne's books. I makes perfect sense now that one influenced the other.
I think I have before, but let me again recommend Scripts People Live and Games People Play. They're much easier to get through than Transactional Analysis, which was written for psych Dr.s. It's a little uncanny how you'll start seeing people do those things in your day to day.
He hits it in a few different books--I think Prometheus Rising and the Cosmic Trigger series, but it's been a while and he wrote a lot of books, so don't take that as gospel.
I have neglected to read Cosmic Trigger. No reason, just haven't thought to get it. Did read Prometheus and the first thing it reminded me of was Jung and Berne.
Quote from: The Rev on September 29, 2011, 02:07:04 PM
There was no attempt to be funny. As far as anything interesting, I don't know. Which of my comments was the one that irritated you?
PD was attempting to be funny. You killed teh funny. Hence the question. Prior to this, I had not seen anything particularly interesting come off your keyboard. That is, in fact, no longer the case, but my statement stands. :argh!:
IN REGARD TO THE REST OF THE THREAD: Good goddamn, I do believe Nigel is on the right track here. I remember when I was a kid and we ate government cheese sandwiches everyday. I'm thinking that in about 9 months, I'll be eating dirt under the overpass everyday. (Okay, that's exaggerating a bit, but the point remains). While the people
here may be able to indulge in the kind of freedom of choice that you are getting on about, it is
not universally true, and there is no reason to state it as if it is.
Quote from: kingyak on September 29, 2011, 11:14:30 PM
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on September 29, 2011, 10:51:38 PM
Wow, this thread really exploded.
I would like to say - all communication happens in a context.
As you're fond of pointing out, Nigel, this is a 'white' board. The people who post here have the luxury of time to piss away on the internet in the comfort of places set up to allow them to do so.
Therefore, my comments on 'choice' were aimed at an audience with that basic level of survival pretty well met. If I'm wrong, and we have a surfeit of people living on or below the poverty line then I'll go back and start qualifying all those statements.
Otherwise, I think the notion of choice and being forced to make decisions is wildly overblown amongst the majority of individuals. It very rarely becomes anything so dramatic as 'I must do X or I will starve', but it is very often used as a trap to stop people start taking decisions that require effort in order to better their lot. That can mean going back to school, or just looking for another job to replace the one they complain about all the time.
I still maintain that believing you have no way to make your life better is ultimately one of the most insidious behaviours that modern society can instil in a person. I think that applies right across the cross-section of society. It is an attitude rather than a situation, and it is a self-defeating one which I despise.
It cuts both ways. You're absolutely right that most people in "first world countries" (and certainly most people who post on internet forums) do have more choices than they acknowledge, but since making those choices would mean rethinking their comfort levels regarding quality of life and security, most people don't consider them real choices.
On the other hand, assuming that there's always an option to improve your life ignores the realities of those who actually do live in poverty. There's a certain point where the need to survive really does physically and mentally prevent you from improving your life. If you're working 2 (or more) jobs to provide food and shelter for your children, you're going to have trouble finding the time to look for a better job, much less train or go to school for a better one, or even use skills you have to supplement your income.
While it's true, I'm sitting here doing little productive, not worrying about where my next meal will come from, I am also aware of the fact that when I graduate, that is a very real concern I might have, and I've been there before. So, this sort of discussion is all well in good, but when I have a concrete timeline of when I might dip below "comfortable" living, well... that's a bit of a depressing thought, innit?
I will always maintain that government cheese and government butter are the two perks of being poor.
Quote from: kingyak on September 29, 2011, 11:30:03 PM
I will always maintain that government cheese and government butter are the two perks of being poor.
'Cept they don't give 'em out in IL anymore.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on September 29, 2011, 11:26:00 PM
While it's true, I'm sitting here doing little productive, not worrying about where my next meal will come from, I am also aware of the fact that when I graduate, that is a very real concern I might have, and I've been there before. So, this sort of discussion is all well in good, but when I have a concrete timeline of when I might dip below "comfortable" living, well... that's a bit of a depressing thought, innit?
Tell me about it. I'm more financially stable than I've ever been in my life, but between crappy pay (for the job I do, even if it's a big step up from most jobs I've had), student loans and a 50 mile drive every day in a truck that gets 15 miles/gallon on a good day (and that I don't have the cash or credit (again thanks to student loans) to replace, I'm only doing slightly better long-term than in the days when whether I ate or not depended on how much money I made that night (or in some case, whether one of the waitresses who would trade their shift meal for a ride home was working at the Awful Waffle). So far, there have been one and a half cases where economic realities have prevented me from bettering my situation:
The first was a job that was perfect for me and I was qualified for, but it was in D.C., so I couldn't afford the trip for an interview, much less the cost of relocation if I got the job.
The other is teaching (which I'm counting as half because I'm still trying to figure out if there are options); right now there are a lot of teaching jobs available in the area, and since it's rural I could probably get my student loans reduced or forgiven after a few years of teaching (which is probably the only way I'll ever get rid of them and have a chance to own anything beyond an endless series of beater cars--at my current payment, if I never miss a payment, they'll be paid off when I'm something like 128). But even if I could schedule classes to go to school while keeping my full-time job, I'd still have to teach for free for a minimum of 4 months. Scraping the money together to live off of that time would probably take a year if I cut out all discretionary expenses (and that's without tuition costs calculated in), so by the time I've got a teaching certificate the local schools will have consolidated and there'll be a surplus of experienced teachers looking for jobs.
So I keep my crappy job and hope that either one of the few better jobs in the area will open up, one of my games will explode and make me a bunch of money, or that one of the local schools will get desperate enough to open up the current unfilled positions to someone without a certificate under the "emergency teacher" option.
If anybody knows the secret of converting Horatio Alger stories from Randian myth to reality, please let me know.
Dammit, now I'm depressed.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 29, 2011, 06:52:44 PM
Quote from: The Rev on September 29, 2011, 05:31:19 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 29, 2011, 05:02:13 PM
Hey, stop knocking my extremely priviledged worldview!
:p
Anyway, it's sounding like The Rev has the notion that the perfect state of being is a hedonistic, "do as you please" series of behaviors 100% of the time. He neglects to notice that this state of being has never existed, at any point in time.
Life is hard work, even for us rich white men.
And, as an aside, I should point out that the most fun and joy I have is entirely free of monetary cost. I have things, and they make me comfortable, but they don't make me happy.
No. No. No.
The point is that what many of the things we call choices are not choices, but driven by necessity. Within those necessities lie certain choices, but the choices are still being driven by some external force.
Hold the phone.
Your entire thesis is, "I can't do what I want, because reality is in the way"?
:weary:
Chapter 5
Life is unfair, wear a helmet.
The wise spag wears a helmet, but also drops hammers.
Anything could be a punchline.
Even the wise spag gets punched.
Chaos never ends!
Even its vacuum has a presence.
To struggle against it
is like pissing in the wind.
Bolded for emphasis.
Either I'm not explaining myself to your satisfaction or you are choosing to not understand what I am saying.
169% chance of the former, just based on experience.
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 08:08:53 PM
Quote from: kingyak on September 29, 2011, 07:29:58 PM
Quote from: kingyak on September 29, 2011, 07:23:51 PM
I think where we're butting heads here is that I never suggested (or meant to suggest) that you have the poverty is a choice and you have the choice to not be poor.
I didn't say that because what the fuck does that say?
Let's try:
I think where we're butting heads here is that I never suggested (or meant to suggest) that poverty is a choice and you have the choice to not be poor.
Ah, OK. Because that, along with whether you can choose to be happy when impoverished, is a significant element of the conversation.
There are so many aspects to this part of the conversation. Is a mother who is unhappy because a child of hers needs (not wants) something that cannot be provided deliberately being unhappy? No, I don't think so. Some ITT are saying there is a choice to be happy regardless. I say that is a very large brushstroke that is fundamentally unfair.
A choice between living in a home in a bad neighborhood and living under a bridge is not a choice at it's core is it?
Quote from: Doktor Phox on September 29, 2011, 11:26:00 PM
Quote from: The Rev on September 29, 2011, 02:07:04 PM
There was no attempt to be funny. As far as anything interesting, I don't know. Which of my comments was the one that irritated you?
PD was attempting to be funny. You killed teh funny. Hence the question. Prior to this, I had not seen anything particularly interesting come off your keyboard. That is, in fact, no longer the case, but my statement stands. :argh!:
IN REGARD TO THE REST OF THE THREAD: Good goddamn, I do believe Nigel is on the right track here. I remember when I was a kid and we ate government cheese sandwiches everyday. I'm thinking that in about 9 months, I'll be eating dirt under the overpass everyday. (Okay, that's exaggerating a bit, but the point remains). While the people here may be able to indulge in the kind of freedom of choice that you are getting on about, it is not universally true, and there is no reason to state it as if it is.
Quote from: kingyak on September 29, 2011, 11:14:30 PM
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on September 29, 2011, 10:51:38 PM
Wow, this thread really exploded.
I would like to say - all communication happens in a context.
As you're fond of pointing out, Nigel, this is a 'white' board. The people who post here have the luxury of time to piss away on the internet in the comfort of places set up to allow them to do so.
Therefore, my comments on 'choice' were aimed at an audience with that basic level of survival pretty well met. If I'm wrong, and we have a surfeit of people living on or below the poverty line then I'll go back and start qualifying all those statements.
Otherwise, I think the notion of choice and being forced to make decisions is wildly overblown amongst the majority of individuals. It very rarely becomes anything so dramatic as 'I must do X or I will starve', but it is very often used as a trap to stop people start taking decisions that require effort in order to better their lot. That can mean going back to school, or just looking for another job to replace the one they complain about all the time.
I still maintain that believing you have no way to make your life better is ultimately one of the most insidious behaviours that modern society can instil in a person. I think that applies right across the cross-section of society. It is an attitude rather than a situation, and it is a self-defeating one which I despise.
It cuts both ways. You're absolutely right that most people in "first world countries" (and certainly most people who post on internet forums) do have more choices than they acknowledge, but since making those choices would mean rethinking their comfort levels regarding quality of life and security, most people don't consider them real choices.
On the other hand, assuming that there's always an option to improve your life ignores the realities of those who actually do live in poverty. There's a certain point where the need to survive really does physically and mentally prevent you from improving your life. If you're working 2 (or more) jobs to provide food and shelter for your children, you're going to have trouble finding the time to look for a better job, much less train or go to school for a better one, or even use skills you have to supplement your income.
While it's true, I'm sitting here doing little productive, not worrying about where my next meal will come from, I am also aware of the fact that when I graduate, that is a very real concern I might have, and I've been there before. So, this sort of discussion is all well in good, but when I have a concrete timeline of when I might dip below "comfortable" living, well... that's a bit of a depressing thought, innit?
I see, so choosing to have a conversation that does not involve being funny is wrong in your opinion.
Quote from: The Rev on September 30, 2011, 12:04:13 AM
I see, so choosing to have a conversation that does not involve being funny is wrong in your opinion.
Yeah, that's totally what I said. Make me laugh or GTFO. :roll:
Quote from: Doktor Phox on September 30, 2011, 12:10:07 AM
Quote from: The Rev on September 30, 2011, 12:04:13 AM
I see, so choosing to have a conversation that does not involve being funny is wrong in your opinion.
Yeah, that's totally what I said. Make me laugh or GTFO. :roll:
What if I choose to do neither?
My balls. These balls are mine. I'm gonna recombine my genes, randomly assort the ones I got from my folks, and shoot 'em out my pee hole. So FUCK YOU.
Quote from: The Rev on September 30, 2011, 12:02:49 AM
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 08:08:53 PM
Quote from: kingyak on September 29, 2011, 07:29:58 PM
Quote from: kingyak on September 29, 2011, 07:23:51 PM
I think where we're butting heads here is that I never suggested (or meant to suggest) that you have the poverty is a choice and you have the choice to not be poor.
I didn't say that because what the fuck does that say?
Let's try:
I think where we're butting heads here is that I never suggested (or meant to suggest) that poverty is a choice and you have the choice to not be poor.
Ah, OK. Because that, along with whether you can choose to be happy when impoverished, is a significant element of the conversation.
There are so many aspects to this part of the conversation. Is a mother who is unhappy because a child of hers needs (not wants) something that cannot be provided deliberately being unhappy? No, I don't think so. Some ITT are saying there is a choice to be happy regardless. I say that is a very large brushstroke that is fundamentally unfair.
A choice between living in a home in a bad neighborhood and living under a bridge is not a choice at it's core is it?
I would say not putting every effort into a plan to get yourself out of that neighborhood (or out from under that bridge) is part of the reason you'll remain unhappy. More than any other time in the history of this planet we have resources available to teach yourself something new at the some of the lowest costs possible. You don't HAVE to learn it from an institution. Knowledge studied, gained, and applied will never guarantee you anything, but then there are no guarantees in life. That's as it should be, IMO. Attempting to socially engineer a win/win for all of mankind is the biggest pipe dream I've ever heard of.
But then, I'm a heartless libertard bastard who adheres to a philosophy of Philosophía Krateítõ Phõtôn, and for any not willing to make time in their lives to do the same, and attempt to better their lot, I have little sympathy.
:lulz: I butt heads with a few on this board about that, and I understand that I am the exception, not the rule, to fighting and bringing yourself out of abject poverty with no family help (close friends did help, but that will get me on to tribalism and on a tangent better saved for an O:KM I've been thinking on for months) but I don't deviate from something I really believe to be true, and neither does anyone else here, and that's cool as hell to me.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 30, 2011, 12:21:45 AM
Quote from: The Rev on September 30, 2011, 12:02:49 AM
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 08:08:53 PM
Quote from: kingyak on September 29, 2011, 07:29:58 PM
Quote from: kingyak on September 29, 2011, 07:23:51 PM
I think where we're butting heads here is that I never suggested (or meant to suggest) that you have the poverty is a choice and you have the choice to not be poor.
I didn't say that because what the fuck does that say?
Let's try:
I think where we're butting heads here is that I never suggested (or meant to suggest) that poverty is a choice and you have the choice to not be poor.
Ah, OK. Because that, along with whether you can choose to be happy when impoverished, is a significant element of the conversation.
There are so many aspects to this part of the conversation. Is a mother who is unhappy because a child of hers needs (not wants) something that cannot be provided deliberately being unhappy? No, I don't think so. Some ITT are saying there is a choice to be happy regardless. I say that is a very large brushstroke that is fundamentally unfair.
A choice between living in a home in a bad neighborhood and living under a bridge is not a choice at it's core is it?
I would say not putting every effort into a plan to get yourself out of that neighborhood (or out from under that bridge) is part of the reason you'll remain unhappy. More than any other time in the history of this planet we have resources available to teach yourself something new at the some of the lowest costs possible. You don't HAVE to learn it from an institution. Knowledge studied, gained, and applied will never guarantee you anything, but then there are no guarantees in life. That's as it should be, IMO. Attempting to socially engineer a win/win for all of mankind is the biggest pipe dream I've ever heard of.
But then, I'm a heartless libertard bastard who adheres to a philosophy of Philosophía Krateítõ Phõtôn, and for any not willing to make time in their lives to do the same, and attempt to better their lot, I have little sympathy.
:lulz: I butt heads with a few on this board about that, and I understand that I am the exception, not the rule, to fighting and bringing yourself out of abject poverty with no family help (close friends did help, but that will get me on to tribalism and on a tangent better saved for an O:KM I've been thinking on for months) but I don't deviate from something I really believe to be true, and neither does anyone else here, and that's cool as hell to me.
Let's not conflate an immediate choice with any hopes and plans for the future. Most people in this circumstance have little choice but to live in the here and now, regardless of what they are working for as far as the future is concerned.
Quote from: kingyak on September 29, 2011, 08:28:24 PM
Quote from: Alty on September 29, 2011, 07:36:06 PM
But the thing is, for most of us, that's a cute little OPTION. Some of us don't get to make that choice.
I'm with you except for this bit. By choosing not to take the option, you are making a choice. Just because an option is one that most people wouldn't accept doesn't make it any less of an option.
No. I mean to say that being able to make such choices are a luxury.
For example, saying "I'm not going to eat any animal products." is a luxury.
Many, many people eat what they get when they get it and are happy for that much.
Things White People Like: Needlessly rejecting goods others would kill for due to flights of fancy.
Quote from: Alty on September 30, 2011, 12:31:14 AM
Quote from: kingyak on September 29, 2011, 08:28:24 PM
Quote from: Alty on September 29, 2011, 07:36:06 PM
But the thing is, for most of us, that's a cute little OPTION. Some of us don't get to make that choice.
I'm with you except for this bit. By choosing not to take the option, you are making a choice. Just because an option is one that most people wouldn't accept doesn't make it any less of an option.
No. I mean to say that being able to make such choices are a luxury.
For example, saying "I'm not going to eat any animal products." is a luxury.
Many, many people eat what they get when they get it and are happy for that much.
Things White People Like: Needlessly rejecting goods others would kill for due to flights of fancy.
Precisely. Sometimes you don't have the choice and you are simply without.
Quote from: The Rev on September 30, 2011, 12:02:49 AM
There are so many aspects to this part of the conversation. Is a mother who is unhappy because a child of hers needs (not wants) something that cannot be provided deliberately being unhappy? No, I don't think so. Some ITT are saying there is a choice to be happy regardless. I say that is a very large brushstroke that is fundamentally unfair.
A choice between living in a home in a bad neighborhood and living under a bridge is not a choice at it's core is it?
On the first question, I don't think "unhappy" is really the right word. A mother whose child needs something that can't be provided should definitely be upset, but if she dwells on that fact to the point that it robs her of all possibility of joy (of the temporary kind--again, rainbows and unicorns are unattainable for everyone IMO), especially to the exclusion of at least trying to do something about it, then yes, she's to some extent choosing her own unhappiness. At some point you have to either do something or accept that nothing can be done and make the best you can of it (even if the best is "try to make the most of the time we have until the lack of medicine kills the kid," although, as has already been pointed out, that's an extreme and unlikely case). Yes, life sucks sometimes, but letting the suck define your life only guarantees it's never going to get better.
On the second, absolutely. Just because it's an option most people wouldn't take doesn't make it any less of an option. I personally prefer to live in neighborhoods that a lot of my peers consider "bad" (not crack alley or hardcore gang territory, but economically depressed, slightly crumbling blue-collar/minority neighborhoods). The rent's cheaper, people have more respect for your privacy, and crime's usually low. And there are some people who honestly do prefer the uncertainty of homelessness to the demands of being a citizen. Humans can get used to anything if it goes on long enough, which is part of the reason it's so easy for Tea Party types to convince people who really don't have anything that they've got something that the "freeloaders" are trying to take away from them.
Quote from: Alty on September 30, 2011, 12:31:14 AM
Quote from: kingyak on September 29, 2011, 08:28:24 PM
Quote from: Alty on September 29, 2011, 07:36:06 PM
But the thing is, for most of us, that's a cute little OPTION. Some of us don't get to make that choice.
I'm with you except for this bit. By choosing not to take the option, you are making a choice. Just because an option is one that most people wouldn't accept doesn't make it any less of an option.
No. I mean to say that being able to make such choices are a luxury.
For example, saying "I'm not going to eat any animal products." is a luxury.
Many, many people eat what they get when they get it and are happy for that much.
Things White People Like: Needlessly rejecting goods others would kill for due to flights of fancy.
That I can agree with you on.
Fair enough, and I didn't mean to imply that it will or even should happen over night. The search for an instant solution, or instant gratification is a plague on the species, IMO.
Everything worth doing or having does and should take effort, even extraordinary effort. Otherwise, like Nigel mentioned before, how will you appreciate it when you do get it? You won't, and you're more likely to piss it away.
I still think you can find happiness regardless of your monthly take home. I did for years, mostly through books and my friends who are, most of them, still in the same financial situation I was in.
People putting their wants before their needs also has a place here in this conversation, but I've had a little too much scotch to elaborate eloquently with my own thoughts about it.
Quote from: kingyak on September 30, 2011, 12:42:46 AM
Quote from: The Rev on September 30, 2011, 12:02:49 AM
There are so many aspects to this part of the conversation. Is a mother who is unhappy because a child of hers needs (not wants) something that cannot be provided deliberately being unhappy? No, I don't think so. Some ITT are saying there is a choice to be happy regardless. I say that is a very large brushstroke that is fundamentally unfair.
A choice between living in a home in a bad neighborhood and living under a bridge is not a choice at it's core is it?
On the first question, I don't think "unhappy" is really the right word. A mother whose child needs something that can't be provided should definitely be upset, but if she dwells on that fact to the point that it robs her of all possibility of joy (of the temporary kind--again, rainbows and unicorns are unattainable for everyone IMO), especially to the exclusion of at least trying to do something about it, then yes, she's to some extent choosing her own unhappiness. At some point you have to either do something or accept that nothing can be done and make the best you can of it (even if the best is "try to make the most of the time we have until the lack of medicine kills the kid," although, as has already been pointed out, that's an extreme and unlikely case). Yes, life sucks sometimes, but letting the suck define your life only guarantees it's never going to get better.
On the second, absolutely. Just because it's an option most people wouldn't take doesn't make it any less of an option. I personally prefer to live in neighborhoods that a lot of my peers consider "bad" (not crack alley or hardcore gang territory, but economically depressed, slightly crumbling blue-collar/minority neighborhoods). The rent's cheaper, people have more respect for your privacy, and crime's usually low. And there are some people who honestly do prefer the uncertainty of homelessness to the demands of being a citizen. Humans can get used to anything if it goes on long enough, which is part of the reason it's so easy for Tea Party types to convince people who really don't have anything that they've got something that the "freeloaders" are trying to take away from them.
Live in the situation in question for 10 or 15 years, then answer again. people can get worn down, no, ground to dust under this kind of constant and unrelenting pressure.
Quote from: The Rev on September 30, 2011, 12:51:08 AM
Live in the situation in question for 10 or 15 years, then answer again. people can get worn down, no, ground to dust under this kind of constant and unrelenting pressure.
I think we're operating on different definitions of "happiness" and "unhappiness" here. I consider them both to be transitory emotional states, so unless you're clinically depressed, fighting for survival, or in constant pain (I'd say the only time in my life I was truly incapable of experiencing any level happiness was the last day or two before I got a tooth that had been abscessed for two weeks pulled, when it hurt so bad I couldn't even sleep), there you can still feel happiness. You seem to be defining happiness as "feeling good more often than feeling bad" and unhappiness as "feeling bad more often than feeling good." Under that definition, I think I pretty much agree with you.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on September 29, 2011, 10:51:38 PM
Wow, this thread really exploded.
I would like to say - all communication happens in a context.
As you're fond of pointing out, Nigel, this is a 'white' board. The people who post here have the luxury of time to piss away on the internet in the comfort of places set up to allow them to do so.
Therefore, my comments on 'choice' were aimed at an audience with that basic level of survival pretty well met. If I'm wrong, and we have a surfeit of people living on or below the poverty line then I'll go back and start qualifying all those statements.
Otherwise, I think the notion of choice and being forced to make decisions is wildly overblown amongst the majority of individuals. It very rarely becomes anything so dramatic as 'I must do X or I will starve', but it is very often used as a trap to stop people start taking decisions that require effort in order to better their lot. That can mean going back to school, or just looking for another job to replace the one they complain about all the time.
I still maintain that believing you have no way to make your life better is ultimately one of the most insidious behaviours that modern society can instil in a person. I think that applies right across the cross-section of society. It is an attitude rather than a situation, and it is a self-defeating one which I despise.
Pretty sure at least two of us are below the poverty line. But it doesn't matter what the board demographics are when you're making general statements that would seem to include the majority of the population. If you want to refer to the options available to the board population only, then you need to be more specific.
Furthermore, while most people in the US do have access to options that would improve their lives, many people in the US are unaware of those options. Your final paragraph smacks quite a lot of victim-blaming, and while it skirts the edge of a valid point, it's a little too Tea Party style for my tastes.
Quote from: kingyak on September 29, 2011, 10:55:30 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 09:35:34 PM
Do you think that people who are depressed from ongoing constant stress related to survival are making a choice to be unhappy?
Depends on what you mean by depressed. If you're referring to clinical depression, no. I didn't feel the need to specify "You can always be happy unless you have a psychological condition that prevents you from being happy" for the same reason I wouldn't specify "If you drop something it will always fall to the ground, unless you're in space."
If you're talking about self-pity, then yes.
I think Wilson's "winner scripts" and "loser scripts" apply here.* If you have a "winner script," you can always find some kind of happiness barring exceptional or extreme circumstances. If you have a "loser script," you'll always be unhappy no matter how fortunate you are.
*And I can't believe I'm saying that, because winner/loser scripts are one of R.A.W.'s ideas that I've never been able to fully buy into, since the concept completely ignores economic reality and in some cases (as the depression example illustrates) physical reality.
I am talking about clinical depression, which under impoverished and other highly stressful situations is a very common occurrence. I agree with you
to some extent but I think your statements are far too general and sweeping.
Quote from: kingyak on September 29, 2011, 11:14:30 PM
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on September 29, 2011, 10:51:38 PM
Wow, this thread really exploded.
I would like to say - all communication happens in a context.
As you're fond of pointing out, Nigel, this is a 'white' board. The people who post here have the luxury of time to piss away on the internet in the comfort of places set up to allow them to do so.
Therefore, my comments on 'choice' were aimed at an audience with that basic level of survival pretty well met. If I'm wrong, and we have a surfeit of people living on or below the poverty line then I'll go back and start qualifying all those statements.
Otherwise, I think the notion of choice and being forced to make decisions is wildly overblown amongst the majority of individuals. It very rarely becomes anything so dramatic as 'I must do X or I will starve', but it is very often used as a trap to stop people start taking decisions that require effort in order to better their lot. That can mean going back to school, or just looking for another job to replace the one they complain about all the time.
I still maintain that believing you have no way to make your life better is ultimately one of the most insidious behaviours that modern society can instil in a person. I think that applies right across the cross-section of society. It is an attitude rather than a situation, and it is a self-defeating one which I despise.
It cuts both ways. You're absolutely right that most people in "first world countries" (and certainly most people who post on internet forums) do have more choices than they acknowledge, but since making those choices would mean rethinking their comfort levels regarding quality of life and security, most people don't consider them real choices.
On the other hand, assuming that there's always an option to improve your life ignores the realities of those who actually do live in poverty. There's a certain point where the need to survive really does physically and mentally prevent you from improving your life. If you're working 2 (or more) jobs to provide food and shelter for your children, you're going to have trouble finding the time to look for a better job, much less train or go to school for a better one, or even use skills you have to supplement your income.
Ha! Suddenly we're on the same side of the issue.
I think we've been closer to the same side all along that you think we have.
Quote from: kingyak on September 30, 2011, 01:39:48 AM
I think we've been closer to the same side all along that you think we have.
It's quite possible.
I feel like I'm arguing multiple sides of the issue here, so I'd like to suggest some terms and clarify.
Joy is what I've been meaning when I say happiness. It is a transitory positive emotion.
Sadness is what I've meant by unhappiness. It's the opposite of joy.
Happiness is an positive overall measure of contentment and is usually based in part on the amount of joy in one's life, or at least the number of opportunities the person has to experience joy and the absence of too much sadness.
Unhappiness is the opposite of happiness, and is often caused by an absence of joy or overabundance of sadness.
Self-Pity is the act of choosing to allow persistent sadness to rob you of your joy to the exclusion of any level of happiness or to use sadness as an excuse to remain unhappy.
Depression is a medical condition that causes sadness, unhappiness, and self-pity, often even when the external stimuli that normally cause those emotions are absent.
My opinions:
- No matter how unhappy you are, you can always experience some joy in life unless you suffer from depression or are involved in an immediately struggle for survival or are in unbearable pain. If you deny this and none of the exceptions are true, you are guilty of self-pity.
- The only things we have to have to survive are food, water, and shelter (and it's possible to live without permanent shelter except for when the weather makes it necessary for survival.
- You always have choices. Sometimes they suck ("I can eat this food from the dumpster and risk food poisoning or not eat it and risk starvation"), but you always have options. Just because most people would not choose those options (because they significantly reduce expectations of comfort ("I'm going to become a hobo") or are morally or emotionally "unthinkable" ("I'm going to dump these kids off in another city so I can afford a Hummer") doesn't eliminate them as options.
- The more comfortable you are materially, the more opportunities you will have for happiness and joy and the more choices you will have available.
- If you're less comfortable materially, you'll probably have more unhappiness and sadness, fewer choices, and fewer opportunities for joy.
- Most people have more choices that could lead to betterment than they acknowledge, especially those who engage in self-pity.
- The poorer you are, the more your choices (especially choices that would allow you to improve your life) are restricted. If you're truly struggling for survival, your options for betterment are so few as to be virtually non-existent.
- Some sadness and unhappiness is unavoidable no matter who you are, and depression is a medical condition. You can't do much about those other than trying to control them as best you can given your circumstances.
- Self-pity is something you choose. By choosing it, you limit your chances of experiencing joy or overcoming unhappiness.
If you take the Randian "every man for himself" view, none of this matters because you got yours and anybody who doesn't isn't trying hard enough so fuck 'em.
If you believe that all people are entitled to some baseline level of happiness, you probably believe some or all people who are unhappy deserve some degree of help. The exact extent and nature of that varies from person to person. For me, it depends on if that help's being offered on a personal or societal level. On a personal level, I'll do more to help someone I know who is sad or unhappy or depressed than I will for someone who I believe is using self-pity as an excuse not to help themselves. Since my resources to help are extremely limited, I'm going to know anyone I'm helping well enough to make an educated guess as to whether their unhappiness is legitimate or self-inflicted. But since, as Nigel points out it's difficult (especially for a casual outside observer, no matter how well-trained) to untangle unhappiness, sadness, self-pity, and depression, I think society has to treat everyone as deserving of help. Trying to distinguish the truly depressed from the justifiably unhappy from the merely angsty would, in my opinion, be about as successful as Florida's brilliant plan to save money by drug-testing welfare recipients (http://goatheadgumbo.blogspot.com/2011/09/drugs-math-and-science.html). What form that help should take is probably another debate.
Does that make any sense? (I stopped paying attention halfway through).
I actually left out my point from the very beginning:
Once basic survival needs are met, you generally have at least some option of choosing to trade comfort for happiness, unless happiness for you is defined by comfort.
Quote from: kingyak on September 30, 2011, 02:39:59 AM
I feel like I'm arguing multiple sides of the issue here, so I'd like to suggest some terms and clarify.
Joy is what I've been meaning when I say happiness. It is a transitory positive emotion.
Sadness is what I've meant by unhappiness. It's the opposite of joy.
Happiness is an positive overall measure of contentment and is usually based in part on the amount of joy in one's life, or at least the number of opportunities the person has to experience joy and the absence of too much sadness.
Unhappiness is the opposite of happiness, and is often caused by an absence of joy or overabundance of sadness.
Self-Pity is the act of choosing to allow persistent sadness to rob you of your joy to the exclusion of any level of happiness or to use sadness as an excuse to remain unhappy.
Depression is a medical condition that causes sadness, unhappiness, and self-pity, often even when the external stimuli that normally cause those emotions are absent.
My opinions:
- No matter how unhappy you are, you can always experience some joy in life unless you suffer from depression or are involved in an immediately struggle for survival or are in unbearable pain. If you deny this and none of the exceptions are true, you are guilty of self-pity.
- The only things we have to have to survive are food, water, and shelter (and it's possible to live without permanent shelter except for when the weather makes it necessary for survival.
- You always have choices. Sometimes they suck ("I can eat this food from the dumpster and risk food poisoning or not eat it and risk starvation"), but you always have options. Just because most people would not choose those options (because they significantly reduce expectations of comfort ("I'm going to become a hobo") or are morally or emotionally "unthinkable" ("I'm going to dump these kids off in another city so I can afford a Hummer") doesn't eliminate them as options.
- The more comfortable you are materially, the more opportunities you will have for happiness and joy and the more choices you will have available.
- If you're less comfortable materially, you'll probably have more unhappiness and sadness, fewer choices, and fewer opportunities for joy.
- Most people have more choices that could lead to betterment than they acknowledge, especially those who engage in self-pity.
- The poorer you are, the more your choices (especially choices that would allow you to improve your life) are restricted. If you're truly struggling for survival, your options for betterment are so few as to be virtually non-existent.
- Some sadness and unhappiness is unavoidable no matter who you are, and depression is a medical condition. You can't do much about those other than trying to control them as best you can given your circumstances.
- Self-pity is something you choose. By choosing it, you limit your chances of experiencing joy or overcoming unhappiness.
If you take the Randian "every man for himself" view, none of this matters because you got yours and anybody who doesn't isn't trying hard enough so fuck 'em.
If you believe that all people are entitled to some baseline level of happiness, you probably believe some or all people who are unhappy deserve some degree of help. The exact extent and nature of that varies from person to person. For me, it depends on if that help's being offered on a personal or societal level. On a personal level, I'll do more to help someone I know who is sad or unhappy or depressed than I will for someone who I believe is using self-pity as an excuse not to help themselves. Since my resources to help are extremely limited, I'm going to know anyone I'm helping well enough to make an educated guess as to whether their unhappiness is legitimate or self-inflicted. But since, as Nigel points out it's difficult (especially for a casual outside observer, no matter how well-trained) to untangle unhappiness, sadness, self-pity, and depression, I think society has to treat everyone as deserving of help. Trying to distinguish the truly depressed from the justifiably unhappy from the merely angsty would, in my opinion, be about as successful as Florida's brilliant plan to save money by drug-testing welfare recipients (http://goatheadgumbo.blogspot.com/2011/09/drugs-math-and-science.html). What form that help should take is probably another debate.
Does that make any sense? (I stopped paying attention halfway through).
tl;dr (nice shot at Randians, though :lulz: )
Quote from: kingyak on September 30, 2011, 02:54:11 AM
I actually left out my point from the very beginning:
Once basic survival needs are met, you generally have at least some option of choosing to trade comfort for happiness, unless happiness for you is defined by comfort.
NOW we're getting somewhere.
Quote from: kingyak on September 30, 2011, 02:39:59 AM
quote redacted for tl
incidentally, who are you?
are you new here? (qualification: I'm new here compared to most everyone else who's survived this place so...)
not that it really matters, but damn if you haven't dumped a good deal ITT, and I appreciate that.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 30, 2011, 03:04:06 AM
Quote from: kingyak on September 30, 2011, 02:39:59 AM
quote redacted for tl
incidentally, who are you?
are you new here? (qualification: I'm new here compared to most everyone else who's survived this place so...)
not that it really matters, but damn if you haven't dumped a good deal ITT, and I appreciate that.
Yeah, he's new. :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Phox on September 30, 2011, 02:57:38 AM
Quote from: kingyak on September 30, 2011, 02:54:11 AM
I actually left out my point from the very beginning:
Once basic survival needs are met, you generally have at least some option of choosing to trade comfort for happiness, unless happiness for you is defined by comfort.
NOW we're getting somewhere.
Agreed. That detail is crucial.
One thing to keep in mind is that ALL emotions are chemical states. We are just a bunch of chemicals, after all.
I'll also point out that one major hallmark of clinical depression is apathy and a lack of zest for life... positive or negative. It not only doesn't necessarily include sadness or self-pity, but it is a suppression of all forms of emotion. Despair and anguish are not depression. Your biggest danger sign is not when someone is agonized and weeping, but when they simply can't bring themselves to care at all.
Quote from: Nigel on September 30, 2011, 03:15:57 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on September 30, 2011, 02:57:38 AM
Quote from: kingyak on September 30, 2011, 02:54:11 AM
I actually left out my point from the very beginning:
Once basic survival needs are met, you generally have at least some option of choosing to trade comfort for happiness, unless happiness for you is defined by comfort.
NOW we're getting somewhere.
Agreed. That detail is crucial.
One thing to keep in mind is that ALL emotions are chemical states. We are just a bunch of chemicals, after all.
I'll also point out that one major hallmark of clinical depression is apathy and a lack of zest for life... positive or negative. It not only doesn't necessarily include sadness or self-pity, but it is a suppression of all forms of emotion. Despair and anguish are not depression. Your biggest danger sign is not when someone is agonized and weeping, but when they simply can't bring themselves to care at all.
Yes, that is absolutely crucial. I've had my more than my share of bouts with depression, and it's almost a numb feeling at times. It's as if nothing matters. It's not pleasant.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 30, 2011, 03:04:06 AM
Quote from: kingyak on September 30, 2011, 02:39:59 AM
quote redacted for tl
incidentally, who are you?
are you new here? (qualification: I'm new here compared to most everyone else who's survived this place so...)
not that it really matters, but damn if you haven't dumped a good deal ITT, and I appreciate that.
My name's Steve. I'm kind of a refugee from the Discordian Society FB page. Cramulus lured me over a week or two a ago with the suggestion that there might be actual Mindfucks (rather than just "wacky Discord") afoot here. So far I've mostly posted in the RPG forum, but I put an intro up in the place where it looked like intros should go if you're dying to know more. I've been keeping up with threads kind of randomly, but on most of the ones where I've had something to say, someone else has already said it better before I came along.
And by the way, I think your icon and the Disco Cat should have a dance-off.
(http://www.hexgames.com/qags/images/stories/qerth/Disco%20Cat.jpg)
Quote from: kingyak on September 30, 2011, 03:53:10 AM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 30, 2011, 03:04:06 AM
Quote from: kingyak on September 30, 2011, 02:39:59 AM
quote redacted for tl
incidentally, who are you?
are you new here? (qualification: I'm new here compared to most everyone else who's survived this place so...)
not that it really matters, but damn if you haven't dumped a good deal ITT, and I appreciate that.
My name's Steve. I'm kind of a refugee from the Discordian Society FB page. Cramulus lured me over a week or two a ago with the suggestion that there might be actual Mindfucks (rather than just "wacky Discord") afoot here. So far I've mostly posted in the RPG forum, but I put an intro up in the place where it looked like intros should go if you're dying to know more. I've been keeping up with threads kind of randomly, but on most of the ones where I've had something to say, someone else has already said it better before I came along.
And by the way, I think your icon and the Disco Cat should have a dance-off.
(http://www.hexgames.com/qags/images/stories/qerth/Disco%20Cat.jpg)
fuck YEAH!
problem is, as the controller of my avatar, I have to warn whoever is controlling disco cat that as a german white boy, I count on 1 and 3.
Hey Steve, are you one of my new Discordian Facebook friends? I have the damndest time connecting real names to PD handles.
Quote from: Nigel on September 30, 2011, 04:28:05 AM
Hey Steve, are you one of my new Discordian Facebook friends? I have the damndest time connecting real names to PD handles.
I don't think so, but I get a lot of random friend requests from various places so I can't be 100% sure. My last name's Johnson and my current profile pic is "The Golden Girls and Will Wheaton playing D&D Framed In Bacon," if that sounds familiar.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on September 30, 2011, 04:21:26 AM
fuck YEAH!
problem is, as the controller of my avatar, I have to warn whoever is controlling disco cat that as a german white boy, I count on 1 and 3.
Nobody controls Disco Cat.
Or puts Disco Cat in the corner.
Quote from: kingyak on September 30, 2011, 04:32:40 AM
Quote from: Nigel on September 30, 2011, 04:28:05 AM
Hey Steve, are you one of my new Discordian Facebook friends? I have the damndest time connecting real names to PD handles.
I don't think so, but I get a lot of random friend requests from various places so I can't be 100% sure. My last name's Johnson and my current profile pic is "The Golden Girls and Will Wheaton playing D&D Framed In Bacon," if that sounds familiar.
No, apparently not, but while looking I did find another Steve Johnson with whom I apparently have 76 friends in common, yet have no idea who he is. :?
Here's the link if anyone wants to add me but doesn't want to search through the 18 trillion other people with the same name:
http://www.facebook.com/kingyak (http://www.facebook.com/kingyak)
(Warning: By sending me a friend request you potentially subject yourself to shameless self promotion, comic book geekery, political propaganda, and goofy shit).
Quote from: Nigel on September 30, 2011, 01:20:45 AM
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on September 29, 2011, 10:51:38 PM
Wow, this thread really exploded.
I would like to say - all communication happens in a context.
As you're fond of pointing out, Nigel, this is a 'white' board. The people who post here have the luxury of time to piss away on the internet in the comfort of places set up to allow them to do so.
Therefore, my comments on 'choice' were aimed at an audience with that basic level of survival pretty well met. If I'm wrong, and we have a surfeit of people living on or below the poverty line then I'll go back and start qualifying all those statements.
Otherwise, I think the notion of choice and being forced to make decisions is wildly overblown amongst the majority of individuals. It very rarely becomes anything so dramatic as 'I must do X or I will starve', but it is very often used as a trap to stop people start taking decisions that require effort in order to better their lot. That can mean going back to school, or just looking for another job to replace the one they complain about all the time.
I still maintain that believing you have no way to make your life better is ultimately one of the most insidious behaviours that modern society can instil in a person. I think that applies right across the cross-section of society. It is an attitude rather than a situation, and it is a self-defeating one which I despise.
Pretty sure at least two of us are below the poverty line. But it doesn't matter what the board demographics are when you're making general statements that would seem to include the majority of the population. If you want to refer to the options available to the board population only, then you need to be more specific.
Furthermore, while most people in the US do have access to options that would improve their lives, many people in the US are unaware of those options. Your final paragraph smacks quite a lot of victim-blaming, and while it skirts the edge of a valid point, it's a little too Tea Party style for my tastes.
I'm pretty sure - though I could be wrong, I admit - that I used the word 'you' constantly, in order to refer pretty much exclusively to The Rev. I thought that would be enough. Since all general statements are wrong (except this one, probably, except when it isn't), you're pretty much moving towards e-prime territory.
The poverty line seems like a fairly useless measurement that pretty much proves my point if you have the cash to maintain regular internet access and the time to use it whilst under it.
And I'm not going to claim to be an expert on American welfare procedure, but if that's the case, then informing people is a very important step.
I don't see how hating an attitude which says 'all free will has been taken away from me, I have no option other than to keep doing what I'm doing' is victim blaming. I don't hate the victims. I hate the attitude, and I would like to see it gone.
But maybe I'm a tea bagger in disguise and secret hate all poor and black people. :?
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on September 30, 2011, 06:43:42 AM
Quote from: Nigel on September 30, 2011, 01:20:45 AM
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on September 29, 2011, 10:51:38 PM
Wow, this thread really exploded.
I would like to say - all communication happens in a context.
As you're fond of pointing out, Nigel, this is a 'white' board. The people who post here have the luxury of time to piss away on the internet in the comfort of places set up to allow them to do so.
Therefore, my comments on 'choice' were aimed at an audience with that basic level of survival pretty well met. If I'm wrong, and we have a surfeit of people living on or below the poverty line then I'll go back and start qualifying all those statements.
Otherwise, I think the notion of choice and being forced to make decisions is wildly overblown amongst the majority of individuals. It very rarely becomes anything so dramatic as 'I must do X or I will starve', but it is very often used as a trap to stop people start taking decisions that require effort in order to better their lot. That can mean going back to school, or just looking for another job to replace the one they complain about all the time.
I still maintain that believing you have no way to make your life better is ultimately one of the most insidious behaviours that modern society can instil in a person. I think that applies right across the cross-section of society. It is an attitude rather than a situation, and it is a self-defeating one which I despise.
Pretty sure at least two of us are below the poverty line. But it doesn't matter what the board demographics are when you're making general statements that would seem to include the majority of the population. If you want to refer to the options available to the board population only, then you need to be more specific.
Furthermore, while most people in the US do have access to options that would improve their lives, many people in the US are unaware of those options. Your final paragraph smacks quite a lot of victim-blaming, and while it skirts the edge of a valid point, it's a little too Tea Party style for my tastes.
I'm pretty sure - though I could be wrong, I admit - that I used the word 'you' constantly, in order to refer pretty much exclusively to The Rev. I thought that would be enough. Since all general statements are wrong (except this one, probably, except when it isn't), you're pretty much moving towards e-prime territory.
The poverty line seems like a fairly useless measurement that pretty much proves my point if you have the cash to maintain regular internet access and the time to use it whilst under it.
And I'm not going to claim to be an expert on American welfare procedure, but if that's the case, then informing people is a very important step.
I don't see how hating an attitude which says 'all free will has been taken away from me, I have no option other than to keep doing what I'm doing' is victim blaming. I don't hate the victims. I hate the attitude, and I would like to see it gone.
But maybe I'm a tea bagger in disguise and secret hate all poor and black people. :?
You are aware that there are in today's society many reasons that would require a person to have the internet, aren't you? But I suppose poor people should just sit quietly in the dark with their hands folded until they decide to make themselves better producing members of society.
My personal physical comforts have been met, no doubt. That doesn't mean that I am incapable of understanding what a person with a different perspective is going through.
Right now I am unhappy about 50% of the time, and have plans in effect that will alter this in such a way as to improve my happiness index to above 80%, which could be the upper band of such a thing.
I wonder if you have the capacity to understand exactly what constant pounding to a persons self esteem, their feeling of personal value (not talking about the kind where one doesn't get the pretty red shoes) can suffer from. Constantly being knocked down. Turning on the television and hearing politicians and would be politicians say to America that you aren't their problem and never should have been their problem.
Pretty much what you said here, if you are poor then it's your own fault and you need to do something about it. While you are competing with college graduates for those exact same jobs in this economy.
Yup. That's exactly what I said. Fuck the poor. Fuck your self esteem - having spent six months out of work, I have no conception of what it is like to have low self esteem issues brought on by unemployment and a lack of funds.
I think I'm out of this thread. Somewhat tired of being misrepresented - and maybe that is an issue with my communication, but I think it is more an issue of people reading what they want to read rather than what I wrote.
I have regular access to the internet, from work. I also access from my cell phone which I choose to have as opposed to a house phone and while not considered a "necessity" considering where I live, a phone for me is.
You can't judge people by their internet access, how many may be on at a library or coffee shop between interviews or while studying?
And yes, there are times when people have to decide to do "X" or else they may not have food in their home for a given amount of time. While they may not starve to death, they will go hungry, their children will go hungry.
As for looking for a job. Do you have any idea how many people are looking for jobs right now? I do, and it is insane. You suggest school. When one works 60 hours a week between two jobs, just when are they supposed to find the time and the money to go to school when every cent they make is paying their bills?
One does not get to the point of feeling that there is no hope from the get go. It gets beaten into you by life, by your situation, by the continuous rejections you get from a variety of organizations who, while they should be unbiased and non-judgemental, they aren't. You wake up every morning and you know you are going to do the same damn thing you did yesterday because you have too. Your family has to eat. You have to pay the utilities, the rent, buy clothes and shoes, put gas in the car to get to that job you complain about so you can get up tomorrow and do it all over again.
Yes, people get caught in a rut, but to accuse it of being a rut of their own making is extremely judgemental, especially as you do not seem to have any working knowledge of what it means to be poor.
As someone who knows what it means to live in poverty, what I have now is a real luxury compared to where I have lived in my past and what I've had to do to survive. Yet I am sure there are many who would see where I live and my circumstances as deplorable in comparison to their own. It still doesn't mean I'm happy or content. I am, for the most part, ok with surviving another day. When the luxuries in your life include 2-ply toilet tissue, it's hard to see the world the same way as others.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on September 30, 2011, 03:02:44 PM
Yup. That's exactly what I said. Fuck the poor. Fuck your self esteem - having spent six months out of work, I have no conception of what it is like to have low self esteem issues brought on by unemployment and a lack of funds.
I think I'm out of this thread. Somewhat tired of being misrepresented - and maybe that is an issue with my communication, but I think it is more an issue of people reading what they want to read rather than what I wrote.
It was not my intention to misrepresent you. I am not talking about the 6 month kind of thing here, but the long term thing. Being born or dragged into horrible circumstance for years. Years that slowly eat onto the core of every aspect of a life.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on September 30, 2011, 06:43:42 AM
Quote from: Nigel on September 30, 2011, 01:20:45 AM
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on September 29, 2011, 10:51:38 PM
Wow, this thread really exploded.
I would like to say - all communication happens in a context.
As you're fond of pointing out, Nigel, this is a 'white' board. The people who post here have the luxury of time to piss away on the internet in the comfort of places set up to allow them to do so.
Therefore, my comments on 'choice' were aimed at an audience with that basic level of survival pretty well met. If I'm wrong, and we have a surfeit of people living on or below the poverty line then I'll go back and start qualifying all those statements.
Otherwise, I think the notion of choice and being forced to make decisions is wildly overblown amongst the majority of individuals. It very rarely becomes anything so dramatic as 'I must do X or I will starve', but it is very often used as a trap to stop people start taking decisions that require effort in order to better their lot. That can mean going back to school, or just looking for another job to replace the one they complain about all the time.
I still maintain that believing you have no way to make your life better is ultimately one of the most insidious behaviours that modern society can instil in a person. I think that applies right across the cross-section of society. It is an attitude rather than a situation, and it is a self-defeating one which I despise.
Pretty sure at least two of us are below the poverty line. But it doesn't matter what the board demographics are when you're making general statements that would seem to include the majority of the population. If you want to refer to the options available to the board population only, then you need to be more specific.
Furthermore, while most people in the US do have access to options that would improve their lives, many people in the US are unaware of those options. Your final paragraph smacks quite a lot of victim-blaming, and while it skirts the edge of a valid point, it's a little too Tea Party style for my tastes.
I'm pretty sure - though I could be wrong, I admit - that I used the word 'you' constantly, in order to refer pretty much exclusively to The Rev. I thought that would be enough. Since all general statements are wrong (except this one, probably, except when it isn't), you're pretty much moving towards e-prime territory.
The poverty line seems like a fairly useless measurement that pretty much proves my point if you have the cash to maintain regular internet access and the time to use it whilst under it.
And I'm not going to claim to be an expert on American welfare procedure, but if that's the case, then informing people is a very important step.
I don't see how hating an attitude which says 'all free will has been taken away from me, I have no option other than to keep doing what I'm doing' is victim blaming. I don't hate the victims. I hate the attitude, and I would like to see it gone.
But maybe I'm a tea bagger in disguise and secret hate all poor and black people. :?
"You" sounds pretty general, unless you specify whether it's a specific "you" or a general "you".
As for the "all free will has been taken from me" attitude, that's something YOU have chosen to project as a result of people pointing out that not everyone has so many viable options available to pick and choose from. Nobody said that anyone was espousing a victim mentality; it's a straw man. Pointing out that not everyone has as many choices and options is not victim mentality, it's recognizing reality. If you simply blind yourself to it, stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalala they're only missing out because of the bad choices they make" then you can't really do anything to change things... in fact, you're then falling into the trap of supporting evil through banality.
Until now I never realized exactly how sensitive this subject could become. It is interesting to see the ones who kind of came after me and the ones who had the same opinion. No DP, I am anything but new here.
Quote from: The Rev on September 30, 2011, 11:33:19 PM
Until now I never realized exactly how sensitive this subject could become. It is interesting to see the ones who kind of came after me and the ones who had the same opinion. No DP, I am anything but new here.
Ooh sounds so mysterious. I, for one, am shocked.
Quote from: Alty on October 01, 2011, 12:12:37 AM
Quote from: The Rev on September 30, 2011, 11:33:19 PM
Until now I never realized exactly how sensitive this subject could become. It is interesting to see the ones who kind of came after me and the ones who had the same opinion. No DP, I am anything but new here.
Ooh sounds so mysterious. I, for one, am shocked.
Liar! :lulz:
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 06:36:03 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on September 29, 2011, 06:23:11 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 05:58:42 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on September 29, 2011, 05:52:31 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 05:31:08 PM
Quote from: kingyak on September 29, 2011, 05:27:01 PM
In my experience, moving closer to the middle actually gives you less ability to control where you want to be one the spectrum. Most shitty jobs, in part because they're shitty, offer a lot of flexibility as to how much you work, especially if you're good at the job. And if a shitty job doesn't allow you the flexibility you need, it's usually not hard to move on to another shitty job (well, maybe not these days, but up until recently). More "respectable" jobs almost all require that you trade away a minimum of 40 hours a week, during specified times, and sometimes require you to make lifestyle adjustments (you need to follow the dress code, be able to pass the drug test, get a haircut, whatever) in return for the paycheck. When I drove a cab, I could work 2 or 3 days a week if I wanted, as long as I was willing to deal with the consequences (eating once a day, not being able to do anything that cost money, occasionally getting utilities shut off because I misjudged how much I'd make on the nights I worked), and there were a lot of times when I did just that to so I could work on personal projects. Now that I have a "real" job, I don't have that option. I'm expected to be here 40 hours a week even if I'd rather have the time to myself instead of the money.
It's not so much "get a better job, you bum." More "re-assess what constitutes 'necessity.'"
But that assessment only works if you have a certain amount of leeway to begin with.
If you are a young single person, it's not that hard to survive on a shitty part-time job. Add kids to the equation and see what happens. And don't give me some facile solution like "then don't have kids" because that's glib bullshit.
Not so bad in the US currently, we still have a fairly robust welfare system.
I doubt that will continue much longer, but it is the case at the moment.
It doesn't if you don't have an address.
I'd be shocked to discover that Oregon is doing worse than Ohio in that respect and here if you have children and do not have a home, or cannot afford one, you can live in government subsidized housing, thus getting an address.
There are some restrictions on who can get in, and there is a waiting list, but it's not that long, and aside from the requirement of children the restrictions have to do with drug sales, so if you haven't been convicted of selling drugs you're alright.
Mind you it's not a nice place, and you have to put in nearly a full time work week to qualify for the benefits (that covers medicaid and food stamps too though) but it is a roof over your head and an address so that you can qualify for medicaid and food stamps.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA
Wait
You're talking about OREGON, right? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA
Yes, honey, that's why Oregon doesn't have any homeless people. :lol:
As an aside, one of the things I find troubling about your input in this thread is that you act as if being on welfare is somehow not the very thing so many people are fighting to avoid.
Things get a LOT worse than being on welfare, ask anyone in a country that doesn't have a welfare system.
An American, on welfare, is still doing far far better than a Nigerian at the mean income level for that country.
Yes, it is unpleasant, humiliating, and fucked up, and I am not trying to deny that Oregon has an abundance of homeless. I don't know Oregon's welfare system at all, I've only dealt with Washington and Ohio, I assumed Oregon's was better than Ohio's because it's a generally mroe liberal state. California and Washington both have better welfare systems than Ohio and more homeless, I'm sure there are several reasons for this but the one that stands out to me is that you can survive without a house on the West coast much more easily than in the midwest because the winters are so much milder.
There are also a lot of homeless by choice people on the west coast. I am not saying anywhere near the majority, but a sizeable enough portion of the population that they make a big difference in the amount of people being counted.
Quote from: The Rev on September 30, 2011, 12:02:49 AM
Quote from: Nigel on September 29, 2011, 08:08:53 PM
Quote from: kingyak on September 29, 2011, 07:29:58 PM
Quote from: kingyak on September 29, 2011, 07:23:51 PM
I think where we're butting heads here is that I never suggested (or meant to suggest) that you have the poverty is a choice and you have the choice to not be poor.
I didn't say that because what the fuck does that say?
Let's try:
I think where we're butting heads here is that I never suggested (or meant to suggest) that poverty is a choice and you have the choice to not be poor.
Ah, OK. Because that, along with whether you can choose to be happy when impoverished, is a significant element of the conversation.
There are so many aspects to this part of the conversation. Is a mother who is unhappy because a child of hers needs (not wants) something that cannot be provided deliberately being unhappy? No, I don't think so. Some ITT are saying there is a choice to be happy regardless. I say that is a very large brushstroke that is fundamentally unfair.
A choice between living in a home in a bad neighborhood and living under a bridge is not a choice at it's core is it?
Not much of a choice, although for a childless person I can definitely see some advantages to the bridge, depending on how bad the neighborhood and the other occupants of the house are.
Quote from: Nigel on September 30, 2011, 07:21:02 PM
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on September 30, 2011, 06:43:42 AM
Quote from: Nigel on September 30, 2011, 01:20:45 AM
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on September 29, 2011, 10:51:38 PM
Wow, this thread really exploded.
I would like to say - all communication happens in a context.
As you're fond of pointing out, Nigel, this is a 'white' board. The people who post here have the luxury of time to piss away on the internet in the comfort of places set up to allow them to do so.
Therefore, my comments on 'choice' were aimed at an audience with that basic level of survival pretty well met. If I'm wrong, and we have a surfeit of people living on or below the poverty line then I'll go back and start qualifying all those statements.
Otherwise, I think the notion of choice and being forced to make decisions is wildly overblown amongst the majority of individuals. It very rarely becomes anything so dramatic as 'I must do X or I will starve', but it is very often used as a trap to stop people start taking decisions that require effort in order to better their lot. That can mean going back to school, or just looking for another job to replace the one they complain about all the time.
I still maintain that believing you have no way to make your life better is ultimately one of the most insidious behaviours that modern society can instil in a person. I think that applies right across the cross-section of society. It is an attitude rather than a situation, and it is a self-defeating one which I despise.
Pretty sure at least two of us are below the poverty line. But it doesn't matter what the board demographics are when you're making general statements that would seem to include the majority of the population. If you want to refer to the options available to the board population only, then you need to be more specific.
Furthermore, while most people in the US do have access to options that would improve their lives, many people in the US are unaware of those options. Your final paragraph smacks quite a lot of victim-blaming, and while it skirts the edge of a valid point, it's a little too Tea Party style for my tastes.
I'm pretty sure - though I could be wrong, I admit - that I used the word 'you' constantly, in order to refer pretty much exclusively to The Rev. I thought that would be enough. Since all general statements are wrong (except this one, probably, except when it isn't), you're pretty much moving towards e-prime territory.
The poverty line seems like a fairly useless measurement that pretty much proves my point if you have the cash to maintain regular internet access and the time to use it whilst under it.
And I'm not going to claim to be an expert on American welfare procedure, but if that's the case, then informing people is a very important step.
I don't see how hating an attitude which says 'all free will has been taken away from me, I have no option other than to keep doing what I'm doing' is victim blaming. I don't hate the victims. I hate the attitude, and I would like to see it gone.
But maybe I'm a tea bagger in disguise and secret hate all poor and black people. :?
"You" sounds pretty general, unless you specify whether it's a specific "you" or a general "you".
As for the "all free will has been taken from me" attitude, that's something YOU have chosen to project as a result of people pointing out that not everyone has so many viable options available to pick and choose from. Nobody said that anyone was espousing a victim mentality; it's a straw man. Pointing out that not everyone has as many choices and options is not victim mentality, it's recognizing reality. If you simply blind yourself to it, stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalala they're only missing out because of the bad choices they make" then you can't really do anything to change things... in fact, you're then falling into the trap of supporting evil through banality.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 30, 2011, 03:09:24 PM
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on September 30, 2011, 03:02:44 PM
Yup. That's exactly what I said. Fuck the poor. Fuck your self esteem - having spent six months out of work, I have no conception of what it is like to have low self esteem issues brought on by unemployment and a lack of funds.
I think I'm out of this thread. Somewhat tired of being misrepresented - and maybe that is an issue with my communication, but I think it is more an issue of people reading what they want to read rather than what I wrote.
It was not my intention to misrepresent you. I am not talking about the 6 month kind of thing here, but the long term thing. Being born or dragged into horrible circumstance for years. Years that slowly eat onto the core of every aspect of a life.
I've been thinking about it. I realize this conversation has pretty much died, but I would like to apologize for getting self-righteous above. On reflection, I was arguing semantics and a point which was in no way based in reality, rather than what I'd like it to be.
I was wrong. Sorry for the bullshit.
Oh look, someone stood on two legs. What a refreshing change.
I can't find an emote that says, "thank you for showing yourself to be a biped," so I'll just have to say it.
(http://wilderdom.com/images/evolution/8.jpg)
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 11, 2011, 06:39:39 PM
I can't find an emote that says, "thank you for showing yourself to be a biped," so I'll just have to say it.
Amen.