|
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. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 16 2013 23:49 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 23:44 oneofthem wrote: questioning everything is not anarchy or chaos, it's rather the invigoration of morality in society. as much as relativists like to harp on differences, there are pretty solid normative directions in most of the social sciences, and the humanities is literally social morality. learning some sociology or theory will let people be more aware of the problems in society and engage with tehm in a more human(e) way.
socrates may have been a gadfly critic, but his questioning leads to moral betterment. Has it? that is just an illusion. 2000 years of questioning morals,yet we still dont aply thoose morals when push comes to shove (like america in guantanamo bay or the way top businessleaders operate) Questioning and discussing morals has not made the world a better place at all. would you like to go back 2000 years and find out? part of the reason why i'm even bringing up socrates is due to his importance to the western imagination of society, and pretty much the central role that an active, critical attitude plays in it.
the execution of course always lag behind the thought, but at least you have to have a thought. say something that you think is morally abhorrent today, and see if 2000 years ago it was considered as such.
|
On September 16 2013 22:29 sam!zdat wrote: sermo we are a society that pretends to be democracy. There is nowhere in the constitution where it talks about capitalism
to have democracy you must have citizens who know how to question everything Capitalism is the pursuit of happiness and therefore is in the constitution. Capitalism as a qualifying word came after the constitution was written. It was an outflow of a lack of control over the economy to allow all white men to have a chance to own slaves buy a pretty wife and become richer.
We do pretend to be in a democracy because we understood the coarse that democracy would take. America is a nation of war, it is all we know how to do. We war domestically in "elections" where the journey doesn't count only the scoreboard at the end of the day does.
Our citizens do know to question everything because that is what the winners do. Andrew Jackson questioned why a hero of the people can't become elected. Reagan asked why can't an actor lie better then politicians. Blind idealism of questioning everything is cancerous to your credibility to change what you recognize is wrong. Having proper motivation to question everything is what gives you the ability to change what you recognize is wrong.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
^you realize capitalism is a marxist term. it was marx who made a big deal about capital and its rent seeking powers. it's only adopted as self identification for Murica because of the cold war stuff.
okay i really like it when you post on u.s. history. andrew jackson was like a...democrat in his time, aligned against elite monied interest on the east coast. he's not rly some great spokesperson of capitalism, as the federal bank certainly knows
i don't knw about you but this stuff was mandatory in high school.
|
On September 17 2013 00:04 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 22:29 sam!zdat wrote: sermo we are a society that pretends to be democracy. There is nowhere in the constitution where it talks about capitalism
to have democracy you must have citizens who know how to question everything Capitalism is the pursuit of happiness and therefore is in the constitution. Capitalism as a qualifying word came after the constitution was written. It was an outflow of a lack of control over the economy to allow all white men to have a chance to own slaves buy a pretty wife and become richer. We do pretend to be in a democracy because we understood the coarse that democracy would take. America is a nation of war, it is all we know how to do. We war domestically in "elections" where the journey doesn't count only the scoreboard at the end of the day does. Our citizens do know to question everything because that is what the winners do. Andrew Jackson questioned why a hero of the people can't become elected. Reagan asked why can't an actor lie better then politicians. Blind idealism of questioning everything is cancerous to your credibility to change what you recognize is wrong. Having proper motivation to question everything is what gives you the ability to change what you recognize is wrong.
Capitalism is the pursuit of happiness? So when I drink the night away I'm capitalizing?
|
On September 17 2013 00:08 oneofthem wrote: ^you realize capitalism is a marxist term. it was marx who made a big deal about capital and its rent seeking powers. it's only adopted as self identification for Murica because of the cold war stuff.
okay i really like it when you post on u.s. history. andrew jackson was like a...democrat in his time, aligned against elite monied interest on the east coast. he's not rly some great spokesperson of capitalism, as the federal bank certainly knows
i don't knw about you but this stuff was mandatory in high school. Andrew Jackson was a raging asshole who should by all rights be remembered as the worst person ever elected president in the united states. He wasn't that bad of a president he was just a horrible person.
He did invent Jacksonian democracy and was the first guy elected in a democracy that wasn't a rich white landed folk who was preordained for the glorious task of leading the peoples.
Marx named capitalism because he invented that there was a thing called an economy and why capitalism was a horrible economic system for horrible people. He was probably some newb that actually had faith in humanity to not be horrible people.
Also yes Roe.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i don't know what you posted but i like it.
however, there does seem to be quite the disconnect between how you understand what UltraLiberals think and what they actually think. you frame liberals vs conservatives in emotional terms of rebellion vs contentment, and that's not too far off the mark. this also ties in well with what i said about the value of questioning existing situations. the upshot is not disorder, but being morally serious about it.
this is why i like religious leftists, they are the most serious of all.
|
On September 17 2013 00:04 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 22:29 sam!zdat wrote: sermo we are a society that pretends to be democracy. There is nowhere in the constitution where it talks about capitalism
to have democracy you must have citizens who know how to question everything Capitalism is the pursuit of happiness and therefore is in the constitution. Capitalism as a qualifying word came after the constitution was written. It was an outflow of a lack of control over the economy to allow all white men to have a chance to own slaves buy a pretty wife and become richer. We do pretend to be in a democracy because we understood the coarse that democracy would take. America is a nation of war, it is all we know how to do. We war domestically in "elections" where the journey doesn't count only the scoreboard at the end of the day does. Our citizens do know to question everything because that is what the winners do. Andrew Jackson questioned why a hero of the people can't become elected. Reagan asked why can't an actor lie better then politicians. Blind idealism of questioning everything is cancerous to your credibility to change what you recognize is wrong. Having proper motivation to question everything is what gives you the ability to change what you recognize is wrong.
Capitalism is the pursuit of happiness? That's how you define capitalism? Really?
|
On September 16 2013 08:40 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 08:36 Boblion wrote:On September 16 2013 08:31 sam!zdat wrote: But you will have to find yrself some THEY LIVE glasses and shatter that ideological cage you are trapped in first
Come on Sam... you are one of them. Why are you betraying your very own kind ? because 'my kind' are a bunch of wasteful banal shallow morons and I hate them. Rich people suck and are useless parasites who piss on everything that is good and beautiful, so fuck them all Damn if the guys at the top are "a bunch of wasteful banal shallow morons" what about the guys at the bottom ? I wonder what they are lol. Cavemen or animals i guess. Why do you want to side so much with the losers ? They are way more stupid and uglier than your brethren and they are ungratful anyway. I mean the OWS guys are always complaining but they can't do shit to actually change something. They are absolutely useless lol.
|
The failure of the OWS movement has nothing to do with wanting to improve the lives of the poor and disadvantaged.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 17 2013 01:19 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 08:40 sam!zdat wrote:On September 16 2013 08:36 Boblion wrote:On September 16 2013 08:31 sam!zdat wrote: But you will have to find yrself some THEY LIVE glasses and shatter that ideological cage you are trapped in first
Come on Sam... you are one of them. Why are you betraying your very own kind ? because 'my kind' are a bunch of wasteful banal shallow morons and I hate them. Rich people suck and are useless parasites who piss on everything that is good and beautiful, so fuck them all Damn if the guys at the top are "a bunch of wasteful banal shallow morons" what about the guys at the bottom ? I wonder what they are lol. Cavemen or animals i guess. Why do you want to side so much with the losers ? They are way more stupid and uglier than your brethren and they are ungratful anyway. I mean the OWS guys are always complaining but they can't do shit to actually change something. They are absolutely useless lol. guys at the bottom who do make it to an environment with sufficient resources do better than spoiled kids partying it up. 'lel the poor are inferior' really shouldn't be a serious position.
|
capitalism is the pursuit of happiness and so it's in the constitution
now I've heard it all
btw the corporate counterrevolution in the university system has nothing to do with the social unrest of the 60s powered by radical profs and campus activism. Nossir. The powers that be aren't trying to clamp down on subversive thought by raising tuition, telling everyone that college is job training and that therefore the humanities are useless. Nope.
edit: the only way it is possible to have anything like a democracy is to enshrine dissent as one of the sacrosanct, core values of your civilization. This means you have to pay the keep of smart people who piss you off and allow them to expose your children to a whole host of uncomfortable ideas. If you don't, it's not democracy.
edit: the fact that postmodernism breeds incompetence and that for this reason the humanities has not been doing itself any favors is a separate issue. You still have to keep us around even when we are being faddish dolts
edit: also children should not have to wait until college before being exposed to a real idea (in part because then if they go to busyness school they never will be). Should start with The Republic in 9th grade and go from there. Teach the little fuckers how to never stop asking questions and never trust anyone who gives them answers
as for whoever said you only need a few thinkers, fuck that. Free thought for everyone
edit: and also apropos boblion's ridiculous snobbery, the other day I was smoking weed with these black kids behind a dumpster and one of them had a better head on his shoulders than any of my little bourgeois pissheads I've tutored. Wish I could have snatched that one away to philosophy land. Alas. You can keep that bullshit classism on your side of the atlantic, thanks very much
|
Capitalism is the survival of the fittest,the pursuit to survive. Persuit of happiness is something completly different imo.
|
YTD deficit now very close to the (nominal!) 2004-08 average: ![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BUTEyqQCUAA1RSH.png) Something to keep in mind as the debt ceiling debate flares up.
Edit: IMO we've cut plenty. Long term issues like entitlement spending can be dealt with over the long term. We should be focused on getting our spending and revenue priorities in a better spot.
|
http://news.yahoo.com/employment-gap-between-rich-poor-widest-record-072956259.html
+ Show Spoiler +WASHINGTON (AP) — The gap in employment rates between America's highest- and lowest-income families has stretched to its widest levels since officials began tracking the data a decade ago, according to an analysis of government data conducted for The Associated Press.
Rates of unemployment for the lowest-income families — those earning less than $20,000 — have topped 21 percent, nearly matching the rate for all workers during the 1930s Great Depression.
U.S. households with income of more than $150,000 a year have an unemployment rate of 3.2 percent, a level traditionally defined as full employment. At the same time, middle-income workers are increasingly pushed into lower-wage jobs. Many of them in turn are displacing lower-skilled, low-income workers, who become unemployed or are forced to work fewer hours, the analysis shows.
"This was no 'equal opportunity' recession or an 'equal opportunity' recovery," said Andrew Sum, director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University. "One part of America is in depression, while another part is in full employment."
The findings follow the government's tepid jobs report this month that showed a steep decline in the share of Americans working or looking for work. On Monday, President Barack Obama stressed the need to address widening inequality after decades of a "winner-take-all economy, where a few do better and better and better, while everybody else just treads water or loses ground."
"We have to make the investments necessary to attract good jobs that pay good wages and offer high standards of living," he said.
While the link between income and joblessness may seem apparent, the data are the first to establish how this factor has contributed to the erosion of the middle class, a traditional strength of the U.S. economy.
Based on employment-to-population ratios, which are seen as a reliable gauge of the labor market, the employment disparity between rich and poor households remains at the highest levels in more than a decade, the period for which comparable data are available.
"It's pretty frustrating," says Annette Guerra, 33, of San Antonio, who has been looking for a full-time job since she finished nursing school more than a year ago. During her search, she found that employers had become increasingly picky about an applicant's qualifications in the tight job market, often turning her away because she lacked previous nursing experience or because she wasn't certified in more areas.
Guerra says she now gets by doing "odds and ends" jobs such as a pastry chef, bringing in $500 to $1,000 a month, but she says daily living can be challenging as she cares for her mother, who has end-stage kidney disease.
"For those trying to get ahead, there should be some help from government or companies to boost the economy and provide people with the necessary job training," says Guerra, who hasn't ruled out returning to college to get a business degree once her financial situation is more stable. "I'm optimistic that things will start to look up, but it's hard."
Last year the average length of unemployment for U.S. workers reached 39.5 weeks, the highest level since World War II. The duration of unemployment has since edged lower to 36.5 weeks based on data from January to July, still relatively high historically.
Economists call this a "bumping down" or "crowding out" in the labor market, a domino effect that pushes out lower-income workers, pushes median income downward and contributes to income inequality. Because many mid-skill jobs are being lost to globalization and automation, recent U.S. growth in low-wage jobs has not come fast enough to absorb displaced workers at the bottom.
View gallery."Chart shows unemployment rates by household income … Chart shows unemployment rates by household income for 2011, 2012 and 2013; 2c x 3 inches; 96.3 mm x … Low-wage workers are now older and better educated than ever, with especially large jumps in those with at least some college-level training.
"The people at the bottom are going to be continually squeezed, and I don't see this ending anytime soon," said Harvard economist Richard Freeman. "If the economy were growing enough or unions were stronger, it would be possible for the less educated to do better and for the lower income to improve. But in our current world, where we are still adjusting to globalization, that is not very likely to happen."
The figures are based on an analysis of the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey by Sum and Northeastern University economist Ishwar Khatiwada. They are supplemented with material from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's David Autor, an economics professor known for his research on the disappearance of mid-skill positions, as well as John Schmitt, a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a Washington think tank. Mark Rank, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, analyzed data on poverty.
The overall rise in both the unemployment rate and low-wage jobs due to the recent recession accounts for the record number of people who were stuck in poverty in 2011: 46.2 million, or 15 percent of the population. When the Census Bureau releases new 2012 poverty figures on Tuesday, most experts believe the numbers will show only slight improvement, if any, due to the slow pace of the recovery.
Overall, more than 16 percent of adults ages 16 and older are now "underutilized" in the labor market — that is, they are unemployed, "underemployed" in part-time jobs when full-time work is desired or among the "hidden unemployed" who are not actively job hunting but express a desire for immediate work.
Among households making less than $20,000 a year, the share of underutilized workers jumps to about 40 percent. For those in the $20,000-to-$39,999 category, it's just over 21 percent and about 15 percent for those earning $40,000 to $59,999. At the top of the scale, underutilization affects just 7.2 percent of those in households earning more than $150,000.
By race and ethnicity, black workers in households earning less than $20,000 were the most likely to be underutilized, at 48.4 percent. Low-income Hispanics and whites were almost equally as likely to be underutilized, at 38 percent and 36.8 percent, respectively, compared to 31.8 percent for low-income Asian-Americans.
Loss of jobs in the recent recession has hit younger, less-educated workers especially hard. Fewer teenagers are taking on low-wage jobs as older adults pushed out of disappearing mid-skill jobs, such as bank teller or administrative assistant, move down the ladder.
Recent analysis by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows that whites and older workers are more pessimistic about their opportunities to advance compared to other groups in the lower-wage workforce.
Eric Reichert, 45, of West Milford, N.J. Reichert, who holds a master's degree in library science, is among the longer-term job seekers. He had hoped to find work as a legal librarian or in a similar research position after he was laid off from a title insurance company in 2008. Reichert now works in a lower-wage administrative records position, also helping to care for his 8-year-old son while his wife works full-time at a pharmaceutical company.
"I'm still looking, and I wish I could say that I will find a better job, but I can no longer say that with confidence," he said. "At this point, I'm reconsidering what I'm going do, but it's not like I'm 24 years old anymore."
|
^nah it's cool. As long as people want to buy things everyone will have a job. Kwark said so. Say's law for jobs. It's Science!
edit @below: yawn
but I see you've discovered the cretan liars paradox! Welcome to philosophy padawan. This is the fun part about telling them not to trust me, seeing the little wheels turn in their head as they try to work it out. You'll be proving incompleteness in no time! Have fun
|
On September 17 2013 02:08 sam!zdat wrote: edit: the only way it is possible to have anything like a democracy is to enshrine dissent as one of the sacrosanct, core values of your civilization. This means you have to pay the keep of smart people who piss you off and allow them to expose your children to a whole host of uncomfortable ideas. If you don't, it's not democracy. To be a real Flash fan I have to spend all my time being badgered by Innovation fans.
To be a real scientist I have to be taught that the Earth is flat and the universe is Geo-centric.
To be a real mathematician I have to be hit over the head with a baseball bat that has "2+2=5" written on it.
I hope you can see why this assertion you've made is absurd. Dissent, in of itself, is useless. Dissent is only useful if it is purposeful, if it is reasoned, and if there is just cause for it.
Teach the little fuckers how to never stop asking questions and never trust anyone who gives them answers Why should they then not trust you when you teach them to never stop asking questions? Wouldn't the highest form of dissent then be a rigid obedience? Such absurdities like these that you are putting forward have no place in either education or political discourse.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
there is value in 'questioning' itself because people usually operate on traditions and other unexamined feelings. so 'questioning' these feelings is a rather distinct activity that does add something to the process.
|
On September 16 2013 22:18 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 14:53 Danglars wrote: See the problems in firing poorly performing teachers, the lack of school choice, past attempts at forced busing, and opposition to voucher initiatives. Ok we get it, you want to fire all the teachers who failed to meet corporate's bottom line. So you apparently have some magical spring of fan-fuckin'-tabulous people with an education degree and a teaching certificate (for that specific state of course) who don't want to ever earn more than 50k a year in their lifetime. Please, do reveal. Edit: Here they are now! + Show Spoiler + Since your education on the issues mentioned is lacking, I suggest googling to increase your familiarity with them. The firing problem is for teachers that can't teach math, English, science, but their union contracts grant them privileges above other industries (federal public employee unions excepted). There's several listed there, as well. For any other commenters, here's the post in its entirety. It is humorous how easily you're able to equate average teachers, or teachers that don't mind the pay and teach well, with teachers that can't teach at all.
On September 16 2013 14:53 Danglars wrote: The system is designed to preserve the interests of teacher's unions and politicians at the expense of students and (sometimes) teachers. They are the ones in power to set policies and the average parent collection stands at a disadvantage in the education of their own children. The myth is that phantasmal forces align to preach false ideology into the ears of students, when really it is one association more concerned with their own profit and power wholly disconnected from their effects of their disastrous policies. See the problems in firing poorly performing teachers, the lack of school choice, past attempts at forced busing, and opposition to voucher initiatives.
In practice they are almost wholly disconnected from blowback, except for the reporting on the entrenched teacher's unions that has poisoned some of the good ill they previously possessed. Teacher's unions demands in California and their strikes did cause a massive uproar. It didn't lead to effective action, but public sentiment reversed for a time.
|
Not to mention the inevitable politicization of the contours of "dissent". Whoever gets to decide what stands as "useful" dissent gets to basically call the shots. This is why a generalized notion is far more useful.
|
when you need a communist to lecture a liberal about the importance of dissent, you know the world has ceased to make any sense
|
|
|
|