|
On July 24 2009 14:32 ItsYoungLee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2009 14:23 dasanivan wrote:
The rant is probably also just as rationally unjustified as self-entitlement, but you also have to understand, the best thing to do when you're frustrated is to rant and let it out. According to my view of history, history happens in bursts - nothing happens gradually. There needs to be some sort of strong reaction/ranting to get this flawed system fixed.
this is the exact type of strong reaction for which you criticize others. i agree that many things in history happens in bursts, but behind especially effective bursts, are calm and rational minds. strong reactions without some sort of rationality gives way to radical groups. I think there is a strong rationality behind why feelings of self-entitlement are detrimental. While the solutions seem difficult, no change comes from everyone keeping hush hush about sensitive issues. The benefits from the thinking provoked by ranting as above outweighs the evils of self-entitlement. That was one of the main complaints I had - there's so much stigma against bringing up any racial issue involving the black community. It would be a dream if this blog could get the cogs going in one of TL's numerous calm and rational minds.
i'm afraid when you relate "benefits" and "ranting" on a scale larger than anything related merely to cartharsis. i'm also afraid when you call this word you often throw around, "self-entitlement," "evil." you are accusing, first, many black leaders of having a sense of self-entitlement (which can just as easily be interpreted as a necessary ideal in the face of oppression that lasted up to the ladder half of the 20th century), and then suggesting that it is evil.
and by all means, rant. i do take it seriously because i have to do everything i can to prevent your ideas from being taken.... seriously.
|
Upon retrospect, obviously a lot of my original post stated my opinions that the leadership of the Black community in America promotes self-entitlement. In my personal subjective view of the American culture, this seems to be true. However, this association between being a member of a Black community and having self-entitlement seeking behavior is not proven, nor can it be strictly claimed based on my single personal experience. My hot-headed furor is now calming down (Thank you TL for helping me think this one out) but the question still remains.
But the question remains: Does a group's sense of self-entitlement further their socioeconomic advancement?
What if the self-entitlement is:
(a) Justified (Do you think self-entitlement was the reason for the Civil Rights movement and Dr. King? I believe it was self-empowerment)
(b) Unjustified
If the self-entitlement is detrimental, what are some practical solutions?
On July 24 2009 14:49 dasanivan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2009 14:32 ItsYoungLee wrote:On July 24 2009 14:23 dasanivan wrote:
The rant is probably also just as rationally unjustified as self-entitlement, but you also have to understand, the best thing to do when you're frustrated is to rant and let it out. According to my view of history, history happens in bursts - nothing happens gradually. There needs to be some sort of strong reaction/ranting to get this flawed system fixed.
this is the exact type of strong reaction for which you criticize others. i agree that many things in history happens in bursts, but behind especially effective bursts, are calm and rational minds. strong reactions without some sort of rationality gives way to radical groups. I think there is a strong rationality behind why feelings of self-entitlement are detrimental. While the solutions seem difficult, no change comes from everyone keeping hush hush about sensitive issues. The benefits from the thinking provoked by ranting as above outweighs the evils of self-entitlement. That was one of the main complaints I had - there's so much stigma against bringing up any racial issue involving the black community. It would be a dream if this blog could get the cogs going in one of TL's numerous calm and rational minds. i'm afraid when you relate "benefits" and "ranting" on a scale larger than anything related merely to cartharsis. i'm also afraid when you call this word you often throw around, "self-entitlement," "evil." you are accusing, first, many black leaders of having a sense of self-entitlement (which can just as easily be interpreted as a necessary ideal in the face of oppression that lasted up to the ladder half of the 20th century), and then suggesting that it is evil. and by all means, rant. i do take it seriously because i have to do everything i can to prevent your ideas from being taken.... seriously.
And clarify to me again, why thinking that self-entitlement is self-harmful is dangerous and shouldn't be taken seriously? What do you propose?
|
United States24800 Posts
On July 24 2009 14:50 ItsYoungLee wrote:
Upon retrospect, obviously a lot of my original post stated my opinions that the leadership of the Black community in America promotes self-entitlement. In my personal subjective view of the American culture, this seems to be true. However, this association between being a member of a Black community and having self-entitlement seeking behavior is not proven, nor can it be strictly claimed based on my single personal experience. My hot-headed furor is now calming down (Thank you TL for helping me think this one out) but the question still remains.
But the question remains: Does a group's sense of self-entitlement further their socioeconomic advancement?
What if the self-entitlement is:
(a) Justified (Do you think self-entitlement was the reason for the Civil Rights movement and Dr. King? I believe it was self-empowerment)
(b) Unjustified
If the self-entitlement is detrimental, what are some practical solutions?
I think generalizing 'self-entitlement' into a yes/no thing and then talking about its effects is a mistake. The ways in which they behave differently than they should as a result of various feelings of self-entitlement can be explored, but not easily.
|
On July 24 2009 14:22 ItsYoungLee wrote:
Your professor's research study is very interesting. What results (if any) have they found with using an Asian accent?
the study didn't include asian accents, but a personal account i've read by amy tan (the author of joy luck club) about her mother's chinese accent reportedly turned many people off over the phone. when her mother talked with store managers, her broker, or others they were far more likely to be rude and terse with her than if amy spoke with them.
|
On July 24 2009 14:37 zeppelin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2009 14:35 jonnyp wrote:On July 24 2009 14:25 zeppelin wrote:On July 24 2009 14:15 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2009 14:05 zeppelin wrote:On July 24 2009 13:57 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2009 13:55 zeppelin wrote:On July 24 2009 13:52 Aegraen wrote:
Yes, the race card gets played far, far too often. It's often a one way street. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, etc. They hurt the black community so much.
We'll never have a honest debate about race in America as long as blacks call you a racist if you even dare to bring up the current state of affairs. (Out of wedlock / single mother births, crime statistics, % on entitlements, median income, drop out rates, culture, etc.)
In fact, today blacks have it better off than any other minority when it comes to preferential treatment by the government (Otherwise known as preferential discrimination or racism). Affirmative Action, Educational Pell Grants, etc.
Martin Luther Jr. King would be appalled at the state of the black community today. He wanted an America in which we were judged by our character, by the individual; Today we have it reversed. Sad, indeed. yeah and the klan isn't lynching anyone anymore either! dang black people have it so easy these days I wish I was black He specifically stated he was talking from a perspective of preferential treatment by the government. Last time I checked the KKK wasn't a branch of the US Government. It isn't but he says "preferential treatment from the government" as if it's sufficient to overcome the crappy socioeconomic situations a large percentage of black people are born into. As a white middle-class person, the fact that I lived in an area with a tax base that could support a modern school with good teachers probably meant more in terms of government assistance than the pittance given to those mired in inner city or rural poverty. "Preferential treatment" doesn't make up for living in an area devoid of social services and economic opportunity. My parents were both state employees and they made far much more money doing productive work for the state than could ever be gained from entitlements programs that for some reason rich people seem to think are a lot of money. TL has a policy of not reading into what someone did not say. He didn't say that blacks have it easy because the government treats them well. He simply talked about how the government currently treats them. Blacks certainly don't have it 'easy' overall. "In fact, today blacks have it better off than any other minority when it comes to preferential treatment by the government (Otherwise known as preferential discrimination or racism)" So there are two cases here: either black people have it 'easy' or they don't. If they have it 'easy', this can be laid at the feet of 'preferential treatment by the government', and said preferential treatment could be pointed to as evidence that black people should be more successful on average than they are. If they do not have it 'easy', 'preferential treatment by the government' does not have a tangible effect on one's ability to be successful. If you are saying that he is saying blacks don't have it 'easy', why would he bring up the preferential treatment in the first place? "Preferential treatment for black people is a sufficiently significant benefit to bring up as a reason they should be more successful" and "black people do not have it easy" are contradictory arguments why are there only two cases? this is a common logical flaw called the either-or fallacy, the OP isn't saying black people have it easy, he's saying that many black people have a sense of entitlement (promoted, or at least not helped, by government preference) that causes many to blindly blame the government, white people, etc. instead of realizing that life is unfair and they should do something about it I wasn't talking about the OP, I was talking about the person who said "Face it, the black community is keeping themselves down. No one else is hindering them." and railing against "preferential treatment" from the government (implying that black people are not disadvantaged solely because of said preferential treatment)
wasn't that quote in the OP? before the edit? maybe I'm going crazy 
On July 24 2009 14:42 zeppelin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2009 14:36 benjammin wrote:On July 24 2009 14:35 zeppelin wrote:On July 24 2009 14:33 benjammin wrote:
exactly what preferential treatment to african-americans receive from the government? a lot of the public schools i tutored at in DC were massively underfunded, understaffed, badly in need of renovation, and badly in need of up-to-date textbooks and other teaching resources There are generally more grants available for higher education and of course hiring quotas that many people complain about. My point and the point of others in the thread is that they don't offset the systematic disadvantages the poor are born into. oh, well, QFT I want to add that this really should be more of an issue of class than an issue of race, but it just so happens that urban poor are overwhelmingly black. Rural poor are another issue altogether and depending on where you go in the country you can find rural poor whites, blacks, hispanics, and natives all in equally hopeless situations. Rural poor are a good bit more spread out and have much less cultural impact than urban poor, but they are in many ways even worse off since they can't take the bus to more prosperous areas to work or study. The son of a white coal miner in Appalachia is just as bad off as the son of a black farmer in Mississippi or a black dockworker in Baltimore.
this right here is my problem with affirmative action, assuming all black people are poor and need help from the government is very condescending, not to mention racist.
also i'm from a family of 6 that makes ~20k USD (i realize this is rich in some countries, but not at all in the USA), I attended a pretty crappy high school, had to go to a CC instead of a uni for the first 2 years of college and other such crap but i deal with it. i think if the government wanted to help equalize the races we should kill a couple birds here and just reward poor kids who are working hard to make a future for themselves regardless of race
edit: im a little biased though lol
|
On July 24 2009 14:51 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2009 14:50 ItsYoungLee wrote:
Upon retrospect, obviously a lot of my original post stated my opinions that the leadership of the Black community in America promotes self-entitlement. In my personal subjective view of the American culture, this seems to be true. However, this association between being a member of a Black community and having self-entitlement seeking behavior is not proven, nor can it be strictly claimed based on my single personal experience. My hot-headed furor is now calming down (Thank you TL for helping me think this one out) but the question still remains.
But the question remains: Does a group's sense of self-entitlement further their socioeconomic advancement?
What if the self-entitlement is:
(a) Justified (Do you think self-entitlement was the reason for the Civil Rights movement and Dr. King? I believe it was self-empowerment)
(b) Unjustified
If the self-entitlement is detrimental, what are some practical solutions? I think generalizing 'self-entitlement' into a yes/no thing and then talking about its effects is a mistake. The ways in which they behave differently than they should as a result of various feelings of self-entitlement can be explored, but not easily.
Ok, then what if I forced you to dichotomize the "self-entitlement" thing. Suppose you could take self-entitlement-ness and transform it into a continuous scale. Now take everyone below the median as "not self-entitled" and everyone above the median as "self-entitled". Which do you think would be more harmful to progress?
|
The biggest irony in all of this is that Bob Johnson, the first black billionaire, has made his money through BET, which perpetuates many of the damaging cultural stereotypes and messages which people complain about. How's that for "minorities need to think of themselves as individuals and not members of a racial bloc"?
I personally think that Sharpton, Jackson, et al do more harm than good if for no other reason than the reaction they provoke in mainstream society. Even if one of them came out and read one of Dr. King's speeches verbatim I don't think it would be a stretch for many people to mock it simply because people have a conditioned response to be derisive of them as public figures. However, the things they do could be motivated by an individual sense of self-entitlement (like Bob Johnson's) and not a racial one. Perhaps they just enjoy the spotlight.
That raises the question: would this perception of self-entitlement exist if there were not figureheads who perpetuated it? Should the self-entitlement of those figureheads be applauded because they are doing what is best for themselves as an individual or criticized because they are setting a bad example in many ways?
There are certainly role models for urban poor such as Bill Cosby who receive far less media attention because he says things which are not controversial (except to the more radicalized figures and people influenced by their teachings).
|
And clarify to me again, why thinking that self-entitlement is self-harmful is dangerous and shouldn't be taken seriously? What do you propose?
self-entitlement, without the negative connotation, would basically be me believing that I should allowed half of the cake that, say, my twin brother and I are given.
it becomes bad when I think I am entitled to more cake than my identical twin brother for whatever reason.
in the situation we have now in America, it is difficult to quantify "the cake," and to have an opinion of whether blacks believe they are entitled to more than anyone else would require you to have many, many facts before words like "evil," or "dangerous" are even considered to be used.
|
About the race card being played too frequently? I completely agree.
|
On July 24 2009 14:51 cunninglinguists wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2009 14:22 ItsYoungLee wrote:
Your professor's research study is very interesting. What results (if any) have they found with using an Asian accent?
the study didn't include asian accents, but a personal account i've read by amy tan (the author of joy luck club) about her mother's chinese accent reportedly turned many people off over the phone. when her mother talked with store managers, her broker, or others they were far more likely to be rude and terse with her than if amy spoke with them.
Bilingual German speakers in Pennsylvania who had strong German accents (basically nonexistent anymore except for the Amish, which this doesn't apply to) felt a lot of social pressure to learn how to speak "normally" in academic or professional circles outside their home areas. They found it difficult to be taken seriously with their accent (even without any anti-German war hysteria) because they sounded rural and lower class. Sounding funny isn't the exclusive domain of minorities.
|
Interesting discussion. I just have a quick question for CunningLinguist
In the study you referenced, were there any attempts to correlate accents/'dialects' with affluence/total demographic or perceived demographic?
It seems likely to me that most people will perceive individuals speaking 'black english vernacular' as coming from a relatively poor background. Many will associate this with lacking social graces, greater propensity for criminal activity etc maybe making other tenants uncomfortable.
Of course, black english vernacular is not going to be the only accent/dialect which has these (or similarly negative) connotations - there are a number, even within the USA. Just as an example (maybe not a great one), a landlord in certain parts of England may be more likely to respond to a caller with an Oxford accent than a cockney accent.
So there should be an attempt to determine the extent to which issues of class etc are relevant to this sort of discrimination (as opposed to purely race) - I suspect it is significant.
Edit: Sorry I didn't notice this issue had already been partly brought up - still I hope for more discussion relating to it
|
On July 24 2009 15:01 dasanivan wrote:Show nested quote +
And clarify to me again, why thinking that self-entitlement is self-harmful is dangerous and shouldn't be taken seriously? What do you propose?
self-entitlement, without the negative connotation, would basically be me believing that I should allowed half of the cake that, say, my twin brother and I are given. it becomes bad when I think I am entitled to more cake than my identical twin brother for whatever reason. in the situation we have now in America, it is difficult to quantify "the cake," and to have an opinion of whether blacks believe they are entitled to more than anyone else would require you to have many, many facts before words like "evil," or "dangerous" are even considered to be used.
I guess it needs to be clarified. According to your negative-connotation-less definition of "self-entitlement" then, what exactly do the governments (Local, State, Federal) in the US do to give any group of minority people a much smaller slice of the cake? Aren't we entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and our rights in the Constitution?
Who says that your twin brother should be given the same amount of cake? Shouldn't you have to earn your piece of the cake, and then the size should depend roughly on how hard you worked? I'm confused.
|
On July 24 2009 15:08 ItsYoungLee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2009 15:01 dasanivan wrote:
And clarify to me again, why thinking that self-entitlement is self-harmful is dangerous and shouldn't be taken seriously? What do you propose?
self-entitlement, without the negative connotation, would basically be me believing that I should allowed half of the cake that, say, my twin brother and I are given. it becomes bad when I think I am entitled to more cake than my identical twin brother for whatever reason. in the situation we have now in America, it is difficult to quantify "the cake," and to have an opinion of whether blacks believe they are entitled to more than anyone else would require you to have many, many facts before words like "evil," or "dangerous" are even considered to be used. I guess it needs to be clarified. According to your negative-connotation-less definition of "self-entitlement" then, what exactly do the governments (Local, State, Federal) in the US do to give any group of minority people a much smaller slice of the cake? Aren't we entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and our rights in the Constitution? Who says that your twin brother should be given the same amount of cake? Shouldn't you have to earn your piece of the cake, and then the size should depend roughly on how hard you worked? I'm confused.
what? you mean you have to work to get ahead? blasphemy, you're just not doing it right
|
Ok, then what if I forced you to dichotomize the "self-entitlement" thing. Suppose you could take self-entitlement-ness and transform it into a continuous scale. Now take everyone below the median as "not self-entitled" and everyone above the median as "self-entitled". Which do you think would be more harmful to progress?
before i say anything, i will mention that this system is flawed because you have no definition of progress. progress could be the genocide of an entire group of people, as certain leaders in history have defined it.
if you were to reduce this situation into a dichotomy of "not self-entitled" and "self-entitled," naturally those who do not feel self-entitled will lose everything to those who feel self-entitled. naturally.
for a group to survive in the dichotomy, they must be "self-entitled," or they will not survive.
|
On July 24 2009 15:11 dasanivan wrote:Show nested quote +
Ok, then what if I forced you to dichotomize the "self-entitlement" thing. Suppose you could take self-entitlement-ness and transform it into a continuous scale. Now take everyone below the median as "not self-entitled" and everyone above the median as "self-entitled". Which do you think would be more harmful to progress?
before i say anything, i will mention that this system is flawed because you have no definition of progress. progress could be the genocide of an entire group of people, as certain leaders in history have defined it. if you were to reduce this situation into a dichotomy of "not self-entitled" and "self-entitled," naturally those who do not feel self-entitled will lose everything to those who feel self-entitled. naturally. for a group to survive in the dichotomy, they must be "self-entitled," or they will not survive.
in my experience (warning: generalizing from experience could be dangerous) people who feel self-entitled tend to sit around complaining that they deserve more, that they're "above" menial labor or whatever. people who don't feel self-entitled tend to work harder to EARN what they get.
|
United States24800 Posts
On July 24 2009 14:59 ItsYoungLee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2009 14:51 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2009 14:50 ItsYoungLee wrote:
Upon retrospect, obviously a lot of my original post stated my opinions that the leadership of the Black community in America promotes self-entitlement. In my personal subjective view of the American culture, this seems to be true. However, this association between being a member of a Black community and having self-entitlement seeking behavior is not proven, nor can it be strictly claimed based on my single personal experience. My hot-headed furor is now calming down (Thank you TL for helping me think this one out) but the question still remains.
But the question remains: Does a group's sense of self-entitlement further their socioeconomic advancement?
What if the self-entitlement is:
(a) Justified (Do you think self-entitlement was the reason for the Civil Rights movement and Dr. King? I believe it was self-empowerment)
(b) Unjustified
If the self-entitlement is detrimental, what are some practical solutions? I think generalizing 'self-entitlement' into a yes/no thing and then talking about its effects is a mistake. The ways in which they behave differently than they should as a result of various feelings of self-entitlement can be explored, but not easily. Ok, then what if I forced you to dichotomize the "self-entitlement" thing. Suppose you could take self-entitlement-ness and transform it into a continuous scale. Now take everyone below the median as "not self-entitled" and everyone above the median as "self-entitled". Which do you think would be more harmful to progress?
I believe that self-entitlement is too complicated to be converted into a one-dimensional spectrum. Self entitlement is not about how entitled you feel, but rather, the ways in which you feel entitled, and how you react to those feelings (although each particular one can certainly have varying degrees of intensity). Perhaps, using specific examples and linking them to real life actions taken by black people/communities would illustrate your point to some degree.
|
Another comment I'd like to make is that during the years of slave trading (legal slave trading that is) most of non-colonial Africa consisted of relatively isolated tribes. In many senses its inhabitants may have been practically stone age. This may be explained by the harsh climate and relative infertility of the ground - meaning that agriculture could rarely support large cities and so forth.
So the point of this is that by the time slavery was finally outlawed in the USA, Africans were freed into a society for which they were completely culturally unprepared. On top of that, everyone still hated them - active discrimination was still legally acceptable, as we all know, through the 1960s or so. With all of this in mind, it is no surprise at all that a century and a half later, African Americans as a whole are still struggling to make headway in this nation, or rather, we are still struggling to reach socioeconomic equilibrium between blacks, whites, and other ethnic groups.
While many people may use the race card inappropriately to their advantage, I feel that I see enough examples of racism to understand why that sort of thinking still exists.
|
On July 24 2009 15:08 ItsYoungLee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2009 15:01 dasanivan wrote:
And clarify to me again, why thinking that self-entitlement is self-harmful is dangerous and shouldn't be taken seriously? What do you propose?
self-entitlement, without the negative connotation, would basically be me believing that I should allowed half of the cake that, say, my twin brother and I are given. it becomes bad when I think I am entitled to more cake than my identical twin brother for whatever reason. in the situation we have now in America, it is difficult to quantify "the cake," and to have an opinion of whether blacks believe they are entitled to more than anyone else would require you to have many, many facts before words like "evil," or "dangerous" are even considered to be used. I guess it needs to be clarified. According to your negative-connotation-less definition of "self-entitlement" then, what exactly do the governments (Local, State, Federal) in the US do to give any group of minority people a much smaller slice of the cake? Aren't we entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and our rights in the Constitution? Who says that your twin brother should be given the same amount of cake? Shouldn't you have to earn your piece of the cake, and then the size should depend roughly on how hard you worked? I'm confused.
you are confused, first of all, because you are overcomplicating what i said. perhaps i should have explicitly stated that my twin brother and i are equally deserving of the cake, in God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth (get the point?)'s eyes. The sole purpose of my example was to define self-entitlement in a light that would not be seen by most as negative.
i continued my argument by saying that the situation of today is actually a lot more complex, and that one should have a lot more ammunition with which to argue than you, as of this moment, have.
You say, "According to your negative-connotation-less definition of "self-entitlement" then, what exactly do the governments (Local, State, Federal) in the US do to give any group of minority people a much smaller slice of the cake? Aren't we entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and our rights in the Constitution?"
But my argument had nothing to do with our governments, the US, life, liberty, or the Constitution.
Simply put, Blacks feel self-entitlement, and the only reason they should feel any less self-entitlement is if they feel more than they should. But how do you know whether they feel entitled to more than they should?
|
On July 24 2009 14:50 ItsYoungLee wrote:Upon retrospect, obviously a lot of my original post stated my opinions that the leadership of the Black community in America promotes self-entitlement. In my personal subjective view of the American culture, this seems to be true. However, this association between being a member of a Black community and having self-entitlement seeking behavior is not proven, nor can it be strictly claimed based on my single personal experience. My hot-headed furor is now calming down (Thank you TL for helping me think this one out) but the question still remains. But the question remains: Does a group's sense of self-entitlement further their socioeconomic advancement? What if the self-entitlement is: (a) Justified (Do you think self-entitlement was the reason for the Civil Rights movement and Dr. King? I believe it was self-empowerment) (b) Unjustified If the self-entitlement is detrimental, what are some practical solutions? Show nested quote +On July 24 2009 14:49 dasanivan wrote:On July 24 2009 14:32 ItsYoungLee wrote:On July 24 2009 14:23 dasanivan wrote:
The rant is probably also just as rationally unjustified as self-entitlement, but you also have to understand, the best thing to do when you're frustrated is to rant and let it out. According to my view of history, history happens in bursts - nothing happens gradually. There needs to be some sort of strong reaction/ranting to get this flawed system fixed.
this is the exact type of strong reaction for which you criticize others. i agree that many things in history happens in bursts, but behind especially effective bursts, are calm and rational minds. strong reactions without some sort of rationality gives way to radical groups. I think there is a strong rationality behind why feelings of self-entitlement are detrimental. While the solutions seem difficult, no change comes from everyone keeping hush hush about sensitive issues. The benefits from the thinking provoked by ranting as above outweighs the evils of self-entitlement. That was one of the main complaints I had - there's so much stigma against bringing up any racial issue involving the black community. It would be a dream if this blog could get the cogs going in one of TL's numerous calm and rational minds. i'm afraid when you relate "benefits" and "ranting" on a scale larger than anything related merely to cartharsis. i'm also afraid when you call this word you often throw around, "self-entitlement," "evil." you are accusing, first, many black leaders of having a sense of self-entitlement (which can just as easily be interpreted as a necessary ideal in the face of oppression that lasted up to the ladder half of the 20th century), and then suggesting that it is evil. and by all means, rant. i do take it seriously because i have to do everything i can to prevent your ideas from being taken.... seriously. And clarify to me again, why thinking that self-entitlement is self-harmful is dangerous and shouldn't be taken seriously? What do you propose?
Yeah, they don't seek Government...no really. I mean, they didn't heed warnings about Hurricane Katrina and stayed. What happens afterward is a mob of people with no ability to self-sustain because they are accustomed to sucking off the teet of the US Government. Fast forward a few years and the winter Ice storms that decimated rural Kansas. Little to none Government assistance and over 300,000 without power for weeks in freezing temps and hardly a peep from the MSM and they did just fine because they relied on each other and not on the Government.
Entitlement programs don't teach you how to fish, they give you a fish. Once that fish is eaten, they're back at the tit for some more. That is the fundamental problems with Entitlements and is the major factor while the black community wallows in poverty. When I was growing up my parents were pretty poor. I'm half Cherokee and I could go to college for free on the Government, but when I grew up my parents drilled into me the ethos of hard-work and never taking a dime from the Government. Fast forward to today; I am self-sustained, educated, and a healthy productive member of society. It's easy to sit there and keep your hands out for the rest of your life. It's not easy to get up and work hard, work towards your education, and avoid obstacles that hinder your progress (Bad influences, drugs, etc.).
I bet within 30 years if the black community was weened off the government tit and had to work to make due you would see a greater emphasis on education, productiveness, work ethos, and you would see crime drop, education levels rise, and median income skyrocket. It's all ready proven. Look at the early immigrants to this country who faced hardships much like todays black communities do. Those second and third generation immigrants grew up with the work ethos, education importance, etc. and look at them now. Productive fully self-sufficient members of society.
|
On July 24 2009 15:25 dasanivan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2009 15:08 ItsYoungLee wrote:On July 24 2009 15:01 dasanivan wrote:
And clarify to me again, why thinking that self-entitlement is self-harmful is dangerous and shouldn't be taken seriously? What do you propose?
self-entitlement, without the negative connotation, would basically be me believing that I should allowed half of the cake that, say, my twin brother and I are given. it becomes bad when I think I am entitled to more cake than my identical twin brother for whatever reason. in the situation we have now in America, it is difficult to quantify "the cake," and to have an opinion of whether blacks believe they are entitled to more than anyone else would require you to have many, many facts before words like "evil," or "dangerous" are even considered to be used. I guess it needs to be clarified. According to your negative-connotation-less definition of "self-entitlement" then, what exactly do the governments (Local, State, Federal) in the US do to give any group of minority people a much smaller slice of the cake? Aren't we entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and our rights in the Constitution? Who says that your twin brother should be given the same amount of cake? Shouldn't you have to earn your piece of the cake, and then the size should depend roughly on how hard you worked? I'm confused. you are confused, first of all, because you are overcomplicating what i said. perhaps i should have explicitly stated that my twin brother and i are equally deserving of the cake, in God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth (get the point?)'s eyes. The sole purpose of my example was to define self-entitlement in a light that would not be seen by most as negative. i continued my argument by saying that the situation of today is actually a lot more complex, and that one should have a lot more ammunition with which to argue than you, as of this moment, have. You say, "According to your negative-connotation-less definition of "self-entitlement" then, what exactly do the governments (Local, State, Federal) in the US do to give any group of minority people a much smaller slice of the cake? Aren't we entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and our rights in the Constitution?" But my argument had nothing to do with our governments, the US, life, liberty, or the Constitution. Simply put, Blacks feel self-entitlement, and the only reason they should feel any less self-entitlement is if they feel more than they should. But how do you know whether they feel entitled to more than they should?
Read my prior post. Entitlements breed stagnation and backwords progress. It does nothing to incentivize progress. (Not only that, but its a form of wealth distribution, which I am vehemently opposed to morally, and philosophically)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
