|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 19 2014 06:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2014 06:18 KwarK wrote:On September 19 2014 06:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2014 06:01 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 19 2014 04:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2014 04:33 Gorsameth wrote:On September 19 2014 04:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2014 04:06 Gorsameth wrote:On September 19 2014 04:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2014 03:03 screamingpalm wrote:
[quote]
From what I understand, it has to do with budget cuts- and also to separate and identify exceptionally gifted (kindergarten at least) students I believe (from what I saw of the examples of the testing). They now have both half-day and full-day classes (it was previously all full-day), and part of this is to assess who to assign for each. We wanted our son to go full-day as he was premature and we feel he is a bit behind the curve, but they said that they felt he wasn't ready yet. I have a much more pessimistic view than you do considering what I've seen from my older kids' and the effects of budget cuts for them already. Large class sizes, classrooms in trailers, shortened school year and program cut-backs etc. If I were you I'd move. Not every community is like that. You make it sound so easy. There are a lot of factors stopping people from moving whenever they encounter something bad. So what? If your community thinks that trailers are too expensive as classrooms and want more budget cuts.. you really want to hang around there forever? so what? what do you think, he can just find a new job somewhere else at any moment, and potentially one for his wife aswell? find a house he can afford, sell his old house ect ect ect. I say again, "just move" is utter bullshit. lol, who says you have to move in a day? Move for the next school year or the one after that. Use your head! This is the embodiment of the sheltered conservative mind. You can't just choose to move. First off, you have to find a job in the new place so that you can support yourself. Second, you actually have to afford to be able to move your life there. Third, your whole family, friend, and support network may be where you live currently. There are a huge amount of variables in being able to move. Just saying, "Why don't you move?" is incredibly ignorant and demonstrates how out-of-touch you are with many (probably most) people in American society. I've moved 3 times in the past decade so I know it's not as easy as going to the fridge. Yet if I had kids being taught in a trailer that was getting budget cuts ... I'd fucking move. Yeah, that doesn't work for everyone. But so what? No where in any of my posts did I say "everyone can do this so if you don't you're a bad parent" or anything like that. All I did was express my opinion / give a suggestion. If you kids can't handle that, you shouldn't be on a discussion thread. The issue with your posts (and much of your ideology) comes down to privilege. You assume everyone has the same options and opportunities that life gave you and then you act like everyone else is too apathetic or stupid to resolve their problems the way you would while not acknowledging how lucky you are. This allows you to treat the status quo that benefits you as a just and sustainable solution while blaming the victims of it. In its simplest terms it comes down to "why don't the poor just buy more money?". That's not my intent so could you point to me doing that please? From my perspective a lot of people are inferring what I 'really' mean based on what they (erroneously) think my ideology is.
It's a pretty universal opinion in my assessment. So I for one 2nd basically that exact sentiment, although I think you are far more clever/deceitful/nuanced (depending on your perspective) in your tactics when compared to someone like Introvert or especially Wolfstan.
If you are sincerely tired of people 'misinterpreting' your comments, then add some substance. If you expected anything else from "I would move and so should you" you would be a dullard. But that's not what I think, I think you do it on purpose as it has happened far too many times and too many people have suggested how to resolve it for it not to be intentional. I have to think you enjoy writing one liners to get people to respond so you can do what you do every time.
|
On September 19 2014 06:44 IgnE wrote:
Did those moves include moving to where your business school was and then moving away from it when you finished?
Nope.
Edit: why would it matter anyways?
|
Universality of opinion is meaningless, especially here. The liberals in the thread are so often wrong in their understanding of opposing views it's laughable. One wonders if they suffer from the same affliction they accuse conservatives of having- ignorance of other perspectives, ideas, or life situations.
This ignorance, combined with arrogance, makes the liberal so confident in what they are saying that they have the audacity to psychologically analyze their discussion partners (this is an especially hilarious endeavor when attempted over the internet).
Get off your high horse. The last two or so pages are so rife with misunderstanding it's painful. Everyone who thinks Johnny is a conservative proves their ignorance. He's had to correct numerous participants on different occasions to something that is easy to discern for those actually on the right side of the aisle. And that's not a put down, I rather enjoy reading his posts, especially the ones that make the lefties rage so hard.
Edit: It also displays laziness. Just stick your opposition into a box, criticize the box. Heaven forbid you talk with the inhabitant.
|
The Kansas Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Democratic Senate nominee Chad Taylor's name should be removed from the ballot in November, overruling Secretary of State Kris Kobach (R).
The ruling shakes up one of the most-watched Senate races in 2014 once again. Independent candidate Greg Orman is set to square off with Republican incumbent Sen. Pat Roberts.
Kobach said after the ruling that the Democratic Party is required under state law to replace Taylor on the ballot. He said he had notified the party chair that Taylor should be replaced and moved the mailing date for ballots from Sept. 20 to Sept. 27 to give Democrats time to pick a new nominee.
Election law expert Rick Hasen said on his blog that Kobach would likely have to sue the Democratic Party to force them to replace Taylor. A Democratic Party spokesperson did not immediately respond to TPM's request for comment.
The court said Thursday that it did not need to address whether Taylor should be replaced under state law because that issue was not before them.
Source
|
On September 19 2014 07:03 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Universality of opinion is meaningless, especially here. The liberals in the thread are so often wrong in their understanding of opposing views it's laughable. One wonders if they suffer from the same affliction they accuse conservatives of having- ignorance of other perspectives, ideas, or life situations.
This ignorance, combined with arrogance, makes the liberal so confident in what they are saying that they have the audacity to psychologically analyze their discussion partners (this is an especially hilarious endeavor when attempted over the internet).
Get off your high horse. The last two or so pages are so rife with misunderstanding it's painful. Everyone who thinks Johnny is a conservative proves their ignorance. He's had to correct numerous participants on different occasions to something that is easy to discern for those actually on the right side of the aisle. And that's not a put down, I rather enjoy reading his posts, especially the ones that make the lefties rage so hard.
Edit: It also displays laziness. Just stick your opposition into a box, criticize the box. Heaven forbid you talk with the inhabitant. TL;DR "When I and people like me say something stupid, the people who call us out on it are big fat stupid meanies and that's the best argument I can come up with."
Thanks for that. I guess that yes, we all missed out on the crucial fact that there is a minority of people who would be able to do as jonny suggested. Unfortunately we must also accept the fact that this minority is highly unlikely to be in this situation in the first place. Which makes his (easily predictable) ideological response about as informative and useful as telling someone they can shove a pint of everclear up their butt and turn their asshole into a flamethrower. While there may be one or two people who can benefit from our two proposals, they do nothing to address the issue at hand for the vast majority of people involved.
|
On September 19 2014 07:23 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2014 07:03 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Universality of opinion is meaningless, especially here. The liberals in the thread are so often wrong in their understanding of opposing views it's laughable. One wonders if they suffer from the same affliction they accuse conservatives of having- ignorance of other perspectives, ideas, or life situations.
This ignorance, combined with arrogance, makes the liberal so confident in what they are saying that they have the audacity to psychologically analyze their discussion partners (this is an especially hilarious endeavor when attempted over the internet).
Get off your high horse. The last two or so pages are so rife with misunderstanding it's painful. Everyone who thinks Johnny is a conservative proves their ignorance. He's had to correct numerous participants on different occasions to something that is easy to discern for those actually on the right side of the aisle. And that's not a put down, I rather enjoy reading his posts, especially the ones that make the lefties rage so hard.
Edit: It also displays laziness. Just stick your opposition into a box, criticize the box. Heaven forbid you talk with the inhabitant. TL;DR "When I and people like me say something stupid, the people who call us out on it are big fat stupid meanies and that's the best argument I can come up with." Thanks for that. I guess that yes, we all missed out on the crucial fact that there is a minority of people who would be able to do as jonny suggested. Unfortunately we must also accept the fact that this minority is highly unlikely to be in this situation in the first place. Which makes his (easily predictable) ideological response about as informative and useful as telling someone they can shove a pint of everclear up their butt and turn their asshole into a flamethrower. While there may be one or two people who can benefit from our two proposals, they do nothing to address the issue at hand for the vast majority of people involved.
lol, you entirely missed the point.
If you were paying attention you'd notice that my post was primarily about the absurdity of the liberals claiming to know what their opposition believes, which makes it even more absurd that they would claim to know why someone believes what they do.
My post mentioned the current issue of relocation exactly zero times.
On September 19 2014 07:52 farvacola wrote:
There's a bit of fortune telling going on; that's not really debatable, but I can't help but point out how commonplace this "oh, you really just don't understand my position," tactic has become
This is very true. Every time someone says "you don't understand because of X,Y,Z" it shuts things down. "You don't know this because you are rich/white/male, etc" destroys any conversation. It displays a lazy ignorance.
|
There's a bit of fortune telling going on; that's not really debatable, but I can't help but point out how commonplace this "oh, you really just don't understand my position," tactic has become, and it usually pops up in lieu of any substantial evidence to the contrary. Past a certain point, one's words carry with them a certain connotation; this is unavoidable. And it ought to be common knowledge to anyone with a passing interest in American partisan politics that the "move somewhere else if it's so bad" response to the person lacking adequate basic services is loaded with holier than thou baggage given it's frequent use by those in an advantaged position. If you're looking to avoid that connotation, then it'd probably be best to say what you mean a different way or add some clarification. Otherwise, you're either naive or flamebaiting.
|
This is very true. Every time someone says "you don't understand because of X,Y,Z" it shuts things down. "You don't know this because you are rich/white/male, etc" destroys any conversation. It displays a lazy ignorance.
This argument is one like farv mentioned (regarding the types who use it) from those who refuse to accept/acknowledge how being rich/white/male,etc protects one (statistically) from realities they/we can generally only see through story or statistic.
As a result they/we tend to form lazy or ignorant perspectives with regards to the people who live those realities.
Come to think of it it's not that dissimilar from the homeless person commenting on some business owners practices. The homeless guy (presumably) doesn't know anything about running a business so his input would probably be ignored by the majority of business owners. In turn, the business owner should keep his mouth shut too because he doesn't know the first thing about what it is like to be homeless.
Of course in rare circumstances one could say they were once the other, but for the vast majority of instances though, it's not the case. The same could be said of policy advocated by the different analogous groups. Everyone wants to tell everyone else what to do but doesn't want any input from them about their own worlds.
I'm the kind of person who appreciates how different perspectives can be enlightening. I think that is what frustrates me and many others the most. It's that we appreciate different perspectives, but not the same tired "well if you don't like it, move" tied with "I'm not ignoring that may be practically impossible for him ("Duh,it was obviously implied") I'm just ignoring how saying that, might be reminding him or people in worse conditions of how impossible it is and how little people care about/understand that reality".
Rape and Poverty are two that leap to mind for the right and Taxes and business regulations are ones that come to mind from the left.
To put in a context that make make sense to you introvert the 'Well move then" line sounds just like "Just tax corporations more" If you put either in one line without any further insight they are just baiting. Jonny's surprise at conservative assumptions would be as genuine as if I posted "If I was in charge of the city I would tax corporations more" as a response to someone saying their city is going broke, and then being surprised when someone assumed a liberal leaning when responding to such a silly one liner.
Short of being molested by an Uncle or going to prison for instance, most men just won't ever know the feeling of being raped or having to see your offender on campus. If they did, they would probably be more understanding of people who wanted their rapists expelled from their schools. Or if Men gave birth, access to birth control would probably be much easier. Not being able to personally experience certain things doesn't make you more or less it just means your world is a little different and that there are just certain things you can't know the same way other people know them. I think wise people have the decency to show preference to people who actually live that reality as opposed to their own undeniably limited perspective (where appropriate).
|
On September 19 2014 07:52 farvacola wrote:
There's a bit of fortune telling going on; that's not really debatable, but I can't help but point out how commonplace this "oh, you really just don't understand my position," tactic has become, and it usually pops up in lieu of any substantial evidence to the contrary. Past a certain point, one's words carry with them a certain connotation; this is unavoidable. And it ought to be common knowledge to anyone with a passing interest in American partisan politics that the "move somewhere else if it's so bad" response to the person lacking adequate basic services is loaded with holier than thou baggage given it's frequent use by those in an advantaged position. If you're looking to avoid that connotation, then it'd probably be best to say what you mean a different way or add some clarification. Otherwise, you're either naive or flamebaiting.
I have to disagree. I post quite a bit here and I can't remember the last time I suggested to someone that they move. So it's certainly not a common suggestion from me. I'll also argue that in this situation, my comment was misinterpreted.
To give an example:
A: "If I were you I'd move."
B: "You make it sound so easy."
"A" does not imply how easy the move would be. The misinterpretations snowball to extreme levels from there, even after I clarified that I wasn't suggesting moving to be an easy or universal answer. That sort of behavior doesn't deserve a defense.
Moreover, it's not an unreasonable or flippant suggestion, given the context. Which school you go to is determined by location, which makes moving a plausible option. Moving isn't exotic either - it's pretty common!
Regardless, what's the better suggestion? Campaign to raise taxes? Attend more PTA meetings? Are those really more viable suggestions than moving?
|
On September 19 2014 09:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +This is very true. Every time someone says "you don't understand because of X,Y,Z" it shuts things down. "You don't know this because you are rich/white/male, etc" destroys any conversation. It displays a lazy ignorance. + Show Spoiler +This argument is one like farv mentioned (regarding the types who use it) from those who refuse to accept/acknowledge how being rich/white/male,etc protects one (statistically) from realities they/we can generally only see through story or statistic.
As a result they/we tend to form lazy or ignorant perspectives with regards to the people who live those realities.
Come to think of it it's not that dissimilar from the homeless person commenting on some business owners practices. The homeless guy (presumably) doesn't know anything about running a business so his input would probably be ignored by the majority of business owners. In turn, the business owner should keep his mouth shut too because he doesn't know the first thing about what it is like to be homeless.
Of course in rare circumstances one could say they were once the other, but for the vast majority of instances though, it's not the case. The same could be said of policy advocated by the different analogous groups. Everyone wants to tell everyone else what to do but doesn't want any input from them about their own worlds.
I'm the kind of person who appreciates how different perspectives can be enlightening. I think that is what frustrates me and many others the most. It's that we appreciate different perspectives, but not the same tired "well if you don't like it, move" tied with "I'm not ignoring that may be practically impossible for him ("Duh,it was obviously implied") I'm just ignoring how saying that, might be reminding him or people in worse conditions of how impossible it is and how little people care about/understand that reality".
Rape and Poverty are two that leap to mind for the right and Taxes and business regulations are ones that come to mind from the left. To put in a context that make make sense to you introvert the 'Well move then" line sounds just like "Just tax corporations more" If you put either in one line without any further insight they are just baiting. Jonny's surprise at conservative assumptions would be as genuine as if I posted "If I was in charge of the city I would tax corporations more" as a response to someone saying their city is going broke, and then being surprised when someone assumed a liberal leaning when responding to such a silly one liner. + Show Spoiler +Short of being molested by an Uncle or going to prison for instance, most men just won't ever know the feeling of being raped or having to see your offender on campus. If they did, they would probably be more understanding of people who wanted their rapists expelled from their schools. Or if Men gave birth, access to birth control would probably be much easier. Not being able to personally experience certain things doesn't make you more or less it just means your world is a little different and that there are just certain things you can't know the same way other people know them. I think wise people have the decency to show preference to people who actually live that reality as opposed to their own undeniably limited perspective (where appropriate).
I think that's my biggest issue. I wrote: "If I were you I'd move. Not every community is like that."
I didn't imply that moving was easy. What I did imply, and people seem to be ignoring, is that a community that sends kids to learn in a trailer while arguing for budget cuts is bad.
So.. leave the bad community for one that spends more on education... and you wonder why I'm surprised that my post got tagged with a bunch of conservative assumptions and caricatures?
|
On September 19 2014 09:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +This is very true. Every time someone says "you don't understand because of X,Y,Z" it shuts things down. "You don't know this because you are rich/white/male, etc" destroys any conversation. It displays a lazy ignorance. This argument is one like farv mentioned (regarding the types who use it) from those who refuse to accept/acknowledge how being rich/white/male,etc protects one (statistically) from realities they/we can generally only see through story or statistic. As a result they/we tend to form lazy or ignorant perspectives with regards to the people who live those realities. Come to think of it it's not that dissimilar from the homeless person commenting on some business owners practices. The homeless guy (presumably) doesn't know anything about running a business so his input would probably be ignored by the majority of business owners. In turn, the business owner should keep his mouth shut too because he doesn't know the first thing about what it is like to be homeless. Of course in rare circumstances one could say they were once the other, but for the vast majority of instances though, it's not the case. The same could be said of policy advocated by the different analogous groups. Everyone wants to tell everyone else what to do but doesn't want any input from them about their own worlds. I'm the kind of person who appreciates how different perspectives can be enlightening. I think that is what frustrates me and many others the most. It's that we appreciate different perspectives, but not the same tired "well if you don't like it, move" tied with "I'm not ignoring that may be practically impossible for him ("Duh,it was obviously implied") I'm just ignoring how saying that, might be reminding him or people in worse conditions of how impossible it is and how little people care about/understand that reality". Rape and Poverty are two that leap to mind for the right and Taxes and business regulations are ones that come to mind from the left. To put in a context that make make sense to you introvert the 'Well move then" line sounds just like "Just tax corporations more" If you put either in one line without any further insight they are just baiting. Jonny's surprise at conservative assumptions would be as genuine as if I posted "If I was in charge of the city I would tax corporations more" as a response to someone saying their city is going broke, and then being surprised when someone assumed a liberal leaning when responding to such a silly one liner. Short of being molested by an Uncle or going to prison for instance, most men just won't ever know the feeling of being raped or having to see your offender on campus. If they did, they would probably be more understanding of people who wanted their rapists expelled from their schools. Or if Men gave birth, access to birth control would probably be much easier. Not being able to personally experience certain things doesn't make you more or less it just means your world is a little different and that there are just certain things you can't know the same way other people know them. I think wise people have the decency to show preference to people who actually live that reality as opposed to their own undeniably limited perspective (where appropriate).
I'm going to ignore a lot the above because whether Johnny was right or not isn't germane to my point.
My point was that, often times in this thread, posters are willing to just slap the label "conservative" on someone or something and thus declare that they therefore know not only what the person is arguing, but why.
I've spent a decent number of my thread posts trying to clarify these things (because knowing what the opposition thinks is crucial to combating it), but it has been to no avail, apparently. For instance, if someone who is a regular in the thread calls Johnny a conservative, they display that they do not, or refuse to, understand what he or conservatives are saying.
It was basically another request that people participating here actually figure out what they are opposing before they oppose it. And for Heaven's sake don't assume to know why someone here thinks the way they do.
That's all I have to say on this, really.
|
starting data point check...
invalid data points will be skipped.
"A" does not imply how easy the move would be.
false, it is indeed an implication on how easy it would be: not impossibly difficult.
Which school you go to is determined by location
false, location probably influences, but does not determine, which school you go to.
... which makes moving a plausible option
false, location influencing which school you go to does not need to affect whether a move is a plausible option or not.
data point check complete...
|
On September 19 2014 09:47 nunez wrote:
starting data point check...
invalid data points will be skipped.
"A" does not imply how easy the move would be.
false, it is indeed an implication on how easy it would be: not impossibly difficult.
Which school you go to is determined by location
false, location probably influences, but does not determine, which school you go to.
... which makes moving a plausible option
false, location influencing which school you go to does not need to affect whether a move is a plausible option or not.
data point check complete...
Starting troll check...
"not impossibly difficult"
Troll check: confirmed.
Try harder next time!
|
On September 19 2014 09:47 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2014 09:19 GreenHorizons wrote:This is very true. Every time someone says "you don't understand because of X,Y,Z" it shuts things down. "You don't know this because you are rich/white/male, etc" destroys any conversation. It displays a lazy ignorance. This argument is one like farv mentioned (regarding the types who use it) from those who refuse to accept/acknowledge how being rich/white/male,etc protects one (statistically) from realities they/we can generally only see through story or statistic. As a result they/we tend to form lazy or ignorant perspectives with regards to the people who live those realities. Come to think of it it's not that dissimilar from the homeless person commenting on some business owners practices. The homeless guy (presumably) doesn't know anything about running a business so his input would probably be ignored by the majority of business owners. In turn, the business owner should keep his mouth shut too because he doesn't know the first thing about what it is like to be homeless. Of course in rare circumstances one could say they were once the other, but for the vast majority of instances though, it's not the case. The same could be said of policy advocated by the different analogous groups. Everyone wants to tell everyone else what to do but doesn't want any input from them about their own worlds. I'm the kind of person who appreciates how different perspectives can be enlightening. I think that is what frustrates me and many others the most. It's that we appreciate different perspectives, but not the same tired "well if you don't like it, move" tied with "I'm not ignoring that may be practically impossible for him ("Duh,it was obviously implied") I'm just ignoring how saying that, might be reminding him or people in worse conditions of how impossible it is and how little people care about/understand that reality". Rape and Poverty are two that leap to mind for the right and Taxes and business regulations are ones that come to mind from the left. To put in a context that make make sense to you introvert the 'Well move then" line sounds just like "Just tax corporations more" If you put either in one line without any further insight they are just baiting. Jonny's surprise at conservative assumptions would be as genuine as if I posted "If I was in charge of the city I would tax corporations more" as a response to someone saying their city is going broke, and then being surprised when someone assumed a liberal leaning when responding to such a silly one liner. Short of being molested by an Uncle or going to prison for instance, most men just won't ever know the feeling of being raped or having to see your offender on campus. If they did, they would probably be more understanding of people who wanted their rapists expelled from their schools. Or if Men gave birth, access to birth control would probably be much easier. Not being able to personally experience certain things doesn't make you more or less it just means your world is a little different and that there are just certain things you can't know the same way other people know them. I think wise people have the decency to show preference to people who actually live that reality as opposed to their own undeniably limited perspective (where appropriate). I'm going to ignore a lot the above because whether Johnny was right or not isn't germane to my point. My point was that, often times in this thread, posters are willing to just slap the label "conservative" on someone or something and thus declare that they therefore know not only what the person is arguing, but why. I've spent a decent number of my thread posts trying to clarify these things (because knowing what the opposition thinks is crucial to combating it), but it has been to no avail, apparently. For instance, if someone who is a regular in the thread calls Johnny a conservative, they display that they do not, or refuse to, understand what he or conservatives are saying. It was basically another request that people participating here actually figure out what they are opposing before they oppose it. And for Heaven's sake don't assume to know why someone here thinks the way they do. That's all I have to say on this, really.
In fairness to Jonny he does sometimes come down on the more left leaning sides of things (when he actually says where he stands). But he also consistently uses conservative rhetoric and catch phrases. Similar to people who "leve fb meseges lik3 th1s and cla1m your the jrk" for suggesting posts like that make them look dumb.
If he just says "I know it's not an option for everyone, but that is a situation I would move away from" we don't have any of this crap... Like I said, he does it on purpose so he can have ridiculous discussions like you see now about what his post originally implied...
|
Norway28747 Posts
honestly I've had the impression that johnny more than anything likes to a) clarify common misunderstandings b) ensure that arguments are logically consistent and sometimes c) devil's advocating. While I also work under the assumption that he has a slight conservative bias, I could picture him being a liberal among conservatives. When he offers actual policy advice it rarely strikes me as 'right wing', and he rarely seems to construct arguments based around ideology, rather around what is feasible + what data supports. (I guess there might have been instances of dubious data, but whatever.)
Basically not too fond of the extrapolating of his opinions (I can see how this is mildly ironic) based on him being placed in a political camp.. It's better if we can all argue based on actual espoused opinions - maybe we can also do a slightly better job stating what we actually favor though. 
|
that someting is "not impossibly difficult" is
an implication on how easy something is.
you can't worm your wait out of that,
it's a cold hard fact.
|
On September 19 2014 09:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2014 07:52 farvacola wrote:
There's a bit of fortune telling going on; that's not really debatable, but I can't help but point out how commonplace this "oh, you really just don't understand my position," tactic has become, and it usually pops up in lieu of any substantial evidence to the contrary. Past a certain point, one's words carry with them a certain connotation; this is unavoidable. And it ought to be common knowledge to anyone with a passing interest in American partisan politics that the "move somewhere else if it's so bad" response to the person lacking adequate basic services is loaded with holier than thou baggage given it's frequent use by those in an advantaged position. If you're looking to avoid that connotation, then it'd probably be best to say what you mean a different way or add some clarification. Otherwise, you're either naive or flamebaiting. Moving isn't exotic either - it's pretty common!
Actually, moving is becoming rarer http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/11/why-arent-americans-moving-anymore-heres-a-new-theory/
anyway, arent you curious why your language happened to evoke the feeling of white privilege much more passionately than the arch conservative twins on here?
|
On September 19 2014 10:03 nunez wrote:
that someting is "not impossibly difficult" is
an implication on how easy something is.
you can't worm your wait out of that,
it's a cold hard fact.
Em, not really. 'How easy' is a relative value, whereas impossible and possible are simply binary. Just knowing the binary value doesn't tell you anything about the relative value.
|
So why isn't moving an option? It's a constitutional right to leave or enter a location, no one is going to stop you. That or you change things if you really care about the dirt under your feet.
A lot of the time people say it isn't possible is because they are risk averse and will recede to what's comfortable/familiar. This applies to everyone from the poor to the domestic abuse victim.
On September 19 2014 05:46 KwarK wrote:
When those who have the means and motivation to ditch underperforming areas do so then what you are left with is ghettos of kids whose parents are too busy, too poor or simply don't give a shit. No good teacher wants to teach in those schools so they leave too and after a decade you have an area where kids are born fucked. Couple that with school funding coming from property taxes and you've got the parents who don't give a shit sending their kids to teacher who don't give a shit in a district which can't afford to give a shit while politicians talk about bootstraps and school being some miracle cure.
It's posts like these that start the rhetoric for the path to denying those with means and motivation their freedom of mobility "for the greater good" so we all live in defeatist misery. I see it all the time from the left in ideas that "inequality needs a global solution" or some lack "economic patriotism." I get the idea(maybe incorrectly?) that some who argue for a more redistributative civilization should prevent those with the means and motivation from leaving with their wealth.
So again if you have a problem with your situation, be a part of the process to fix it or join a community where the problem doesn't exist or has already been solved.
|
yes, it does jonny.
let E denote the countably infinite set of values that denote the easiness of a problem:
E ≔ { 1, 2, ... }
let p denote the monotonically decreasing function identifying the easiness of a problem with the binary property of being possible to solve:
p: E -> {0, 1} where 0 denotes it is not possible, and 1 denotes it is possible.
thus:
if E∋e₀ and p(e₀) = 1, then ∀E∋e such that e <= e₀: p(e) = 1.
if E∋e₁ and p(e₁) = 0, then ∀E∋e such that e >= e₁: p(e) = 0.
let E∋eₐ denote the easiness of the problem: screamingpalm moving.
we know from your post that p(eₐ) = 1.
we also know that ∃E∋e₁ such that p(e₁) = 0.
then ∀∃E∋e₁ such that p(e₁)=0, and ∀E∋e such that e>=e₁: eₐ<e.
Q.E.D.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
