|
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 January 18 2017 05:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2017 05:24 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 05:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 04:39 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 04:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 04:14 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 04:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 04:04 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 03:59 Acrofales wrote:Okay, so the middle class is disappearing in the US. But there seem to be a lot more causes than a simple "jobs moved to China". In fact, it seems to indicate segregation, and education and healthcare costs ballooning as equal if not greater causes than manufacturing jobs moving to China. That much is true, yes. Nevertheless, the trend seems to be that the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the incentives are such that it's very hard to do something about it. Make labor in the homeland more expensive and they will either move or automate your job away. Make them pay more taxes and there are plenty of willing tax havens that will be glad to take up some rich folk. And so on. The "jobs to China" is a very key part of this problem because where it doesn't happen, the threat of its occurrence has an indirect influence. For context: This is only true in rich countries. Poor countries experience something very different. Elaborate, please. How is it different? As someone who grew up in a poor country and who has seen multiple islands from blossom into unseen prosperity; I really don't think you know what Globalization is actually doing to 3rd world countries. The benefit to them is not in doubt. I didn't imply as much - but you can absolutely get more out of them for less than you could from Americans. Would an American engineer work in Shitfuckistan for $20k/year, no benefits? Would a person from a nation with a median income of $500/year do the same? Would Americans who want to live a decent life lose out from that reality? Would the third worlders benefit? All depends on cost of living ratios vs social status importance. Lots of people would rather have worse cost of living ratios but live in SF or NY, while others would rather have higher cost of living ratios but live in shitfuckistan. The lower cost of workers in the Philippines and India has allowed call centers in those locations to actually ask more from its staff than the US. Higher education, better training, etc... Could they get cheaper? Sure they could--but why would they when they can get people with a masters in engineering as the customer support staff helping people with their laptop problems? Netflix is starting to move its centers to the Philippines--primarily because every time they start a center here in the states the americans keep calling the job shit and start yelling at customers. Because Americans look down at any job without prestige to it. Just because you have certain worries about globalization does not mean those worries are true, nor does it mean those worries are universal. $20k in Shitfuckistan is a lot better than $500 in India but worse than even $20k in Bumfuckville, Ohio, much less $60k in SF (still pretty shitty). Guess who is more inclined to take those jobs? Maybe we can require a PhD for our $20k/year workers in Shitfuckistan because there are so many willing Indians. But those prissy Americans just aren't up for it. It's clear who benefits - and who loses - from that arrangement. And the loser is the American middle class, easily. Incidentally, I myself am thankfully in a position that I would say would be called a "winner" in globalization. I can't say it feels like victory - I'd be better off overall if the conditions were as they were 40+ years ago - but I definitely make more money this way. But if you don't see the people who lose bigly from this arrangement then you would be delusional. Which is why, as I said, the only people who lose are the people who don't want to move to urban areas and who want to stay in towns without industry while not actively joining industries that better matches their social class. Just because the middle class are now people who live in the suburbs of the new economic centers of cities does not mean "the middle class" is dead. The middle class is simply different.
It's not "cities" but increasingly so a few key megacities. A lot of urban centers are overall in decline.
I am more inclined to sympathize with people who would rather not move to NY/SF/LA etc. to find work than to say that they're just inflexible fools. That cityward migration leads to bad things in the long run.
|
On January 18 2017 05:34 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2017 05:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 05:24 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 05:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 04:39 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 04:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 04:14 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 04:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 04:04 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 03:59 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
Okay, so the middle class is disappearing in the US. But there seem to be a lot more causes than a simple "jobs moved to China". In fact, it seems to indicate segregation, and education and healthcare costs ballooning as equal if not greater causes than manufacturing jobs moving to China. That much is true, yes. Nevertheless, the trend seems to be that the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the incentives are such that it's very hard to do something about it. Make labor in the homeland more expensive and they will either move or automate your job away. Make them pay more taxes and there are plenty of willing tax havens that will be glad to take up some rich folk. And so on. The "jobs to China" is a very key part of this problem because where it doesn't happen, the threat of its occurrence has an indirect influence. For context: This is only true in rich countries. Poor countries experience something very different. Elaborate, please. How is it different? As someone who grew up in a poor country and who has seen multiple islands from blossom into unseen prosperity; I really don't think you know what Globalization is actually doing to 3rd world countries. The benefit to them is not in doubt. I didn't imply as much - but you can absolutely get more out of them for less than you could from Americans. Would an American engineer work in Shitfuckistan for $20k/year, no benefits? Would a person from a nation with a median income of $500/year do the same? Would Americans who want to live a decent life lose out from that reality? Would the third worlders benefit? All depends on cost of living ratios vs social status importance. Lots of people would rather have worse cost of living ratios but live in SF or NY, while others would rather have higher cost of living ratios but live in shitfuckistan. The lower cost of workers in the Philippines and India has allowed call centers in those locations to actually ask more from its staff than the US. Higher education, better training, etc... Could they get cheaper? Sure they could--but why would they when they can get people with a masters in engineering as the customer support staff helping people with their laptop problems? Netflix is starting to move its centers to the Philippines--primarily because every time they start a center here in the states the americans keep calling the job shit and start yelling at customers. Because Americans look down at any job without prestige to it. Just because you have certain worries about globalization does not mean those worries are true, nor does it mean those worries are universal. $20k in Shitfuckistan is a lot better than $500 in India but worse than even $20k in Bumfuckville, Ohio, much less $60k in SF (still pretty shitty). Guess who is more inclined to take those jobs? Maybe we can require a PhD for our $20k/year workers in Shitfuckistan because there are so many willing Indians. But those prissy Americans just aren't up for it. It's clear who benefits - and who loses - from that arrangement. And the loser is the American middle class, easily. Incidentally, I myself am thankfully in a position that I would say would be called a "winner" in globalization. I can't say it feels like victory - I'd be better off overall if the conditions were as they were 40+ years ago - but I definitely make more money this way. But if you don't see the people who lose bigly from this arrangement then you would be delusional. Which is why, as I said, the only people who lose are the people who don't want to move to urban areas and who want to stay in towns without industry while not actively joining industries that better matches their social class. Just because the middle class are now people who live in the suburbs of the new economic centers of cities does not mean "the middle class" is dead. The middle class is simply different. It's not "cities" but increasingly so a few key megacities. A lot of urban centers are overall in decline. I am more inclined to sympathize with people who would rather not move to NY/SF/LA etc. to find work than to say that they're just inflexible fools.
When an industry disappears, then you have to move. That's the nature of the world. Its what the poorest of the poor do in countries outside of the 1st world. Its why 3rd world countries have people emigrating to richer areas to work so they can send money back home. Its what my family has had to do for generations. Its what other families have had to do. And its what my progeny will also have to do. If people don't adapt to the world around them, but expect the world to adapt to their every need--then who really is the petty one?
|
And people wonder why mainstream America has grown so distrustful of the current form of the Civil Rights Movement:
CNN analyst Marc Lamont Hill attacked a fellow panelist Monday for his work on Donald Trump‘s National Diversity Coalition, calling him a “mediocre Negro” being manipulated by Trump.
“I love Steve Harvey and I have respect for Steve Harvey and I think his intentions were appropriate, but my disagreement is the way in which he’s being used by folk like Donald Trump,” Hill said.
“They keep bringing up comedians and and actors athletes to represent black interests. It’s demeaning, it’s disrespectful, and it’s condescending,” he continued. “Bring some people up there with expertise Donald Trump, don’t just bring up people to entertain.”
“You weren’t even there…” responded Bruce LeVell, a member of Trump’s diversity team. “Pastor Darryl Scott, Mike Cohen, they are in the process of bringing all types of people from all over the country, from all different backgrounds. Remember the diversity coalition where we reached out to all different types of people?”
“Yeah, it was a bunch of mediocre Negroes being dragged in front of TV as a photo-op for Donald Trump’s exploitative campaign against black people. And you are an example of that,” Hill shot back.
Unsurprisingly, the conversation immediately devolved into shouting. “I’m not name-calling,” Hill insisted.
Source.
|
On January 18 2017 05:41 xDaunt wrote:And people wonder why mainstream America has grown so distrustful of the current form of the Civil Rights Movement: Show nested quote +CNN analyst Marc Lamont Hill attacked a fellow panelist Monday for his work on Donald Trump‘s National Diversity Coalition, calling him a “mediocre Negro” being manipulated by Trump.
“I love Steve Harvey and I have respect for Steve Harvey and I think his intentions were appropriate, but my disagreement is the way in which he’s being used by folk like Donald Trump,” Hill said.
“They keep bringing up comedians and and actors athletes to represent black interests. It’s demeaning, it’s disrespectful, and it’s condescending,” he continued. “Bring some people up there with expertise Donald Trump, don’t just bring up people to entertain.”
“You weren’t even there…” responded Bruce LeVell, a member of Trump’s diversity team. “Pastor Darryl Scott, Mike Cohen, they are in the process of bringing all types of people from all over the country, from all different backgrounds. Remember the diversity coalition where we reached out to all different types of people?”
“Yeah, it was a bunch of mediocre Negroes being dragged in front of TV as a photo-op for Donald Trump’s exploitative campaign against black people. And you are an example of that,” Hill shot back.
Unsurprisingly, the conversation immediately devolved into shouting. “I’m not name-calling,” Hill insisted. Source.
This is not a recent trend.
"I freed a thousand slaves I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves."
-Harriet Tubman
All civil rights movements will have within them people who disagree with each other as to the severity and solutions to the issues at hand. Its been a truism since eternity began.
|
On January 18 2017 05:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2017 05:34 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 05:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 05:24 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 05:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 04:39 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 04:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 04:14 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 04:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 04:04 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
That much is true, yes. Nevertheless, the trend seems to be that the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the incentives are such that it's very hard to do something about it. Make labor in the homeland more expensive and they will either move or automate your job away. Make them pay more taxes and there are plenty of willing tax havens that will be glad to take up some rich folk. And so on. The "jobs to China" is a very key part of this problem because where it doesn't happen, the threat of its occurrence has an indirect influence. For context: This is only true in rich countries. Poor countries experience something very different. Elaborate, please. How is it different? As someone who grew up in a poor country and who has seen multiple islands from blossom into unseen prosperity; I really don't think you know what Globalization is actually doing to 3rd world countries. The benefit to them is not in doubt. I didn't imply as much - but you can absolutely get more out of them for less than you could from Americans. Would an American engineer work in Shitfuckistan for $20k/year, no benefits? Would a person from a nation with a median income of $500/year do the same? Would Americans who want to live a decent life lose out from that reality? Would the third worlders benefit? All depends on cost of living ratios vs social status importance. Lots of people would rather have worse cost of living ratios but live in SF or NY, while others would rather have higher cost of living ratios but live in shitfuckistan. The lower cost of workers in the Philippines and India has allowed call centers in those locations to actually ask more from its staff than the US. Higher education, better training, etc... Could they get cheaper? Sure they could--but why would they when they can get people with a masters in engineering as the customer support staff helping people with their laptop problems? Netflix is starting to move its centers to the Philippines--primarily because every time they start a center here in the states the americans keep calling the job shit and start yelling at customers. Because Americans look down at any job without prestige to it. Just because you have certain worries about globalization does not mean those worries are true, nor does it mean those worries are universal. $20k in Shitfuckistan is a lot better than $500 in India but worse than even $20k in Bumfuckville, Ohio, much less $60k in SF (still pretty shitty). Guess who is more inclined to take those jobs? Maybe we can require a PhD for our $20k/year workers in Shitfuckistan because there are so many willing Indians. But those prissy Americans just aren't up for it. It's clear who benefits - and who loses - from that arrangement. And the loser is the American middle class, easily. Incidentally, I myself am thankfully in a position that I would say would be called a "winner" in globalization. I can't say it feels like victory - I'd be better off overall if the conditions were as they were 40+ years ago - but I definitely make more money this way. But if you don't see the people who lose bigly from this arrangement then you would be delusional. Which is why, as I said, the only people who lose are the people who don't want to move to urban areas and who want to stay in towns without industry while not actively joining industries that better matches their social class. Just because the middle class are now people who live in the suburbs of the new economic centers of cities does not mean "the middle class" is dead. The middle class is simply different. It's not "cities" but increasingly so a few key megacities. A lot of urban centers are overall in decline. I am more inclined to sympathize with people who would rather not move to NY/SF/LA etc. to find work than to say that they're just inflexible fools. When an industry disappears, then you have to move. That's the nature of the world. Its what the poorest of the poor do in countries outside of the 1st world. Its why 3rd world countries have people emigrating to richer areas to work so they can send money back home. Its what my family has had to do for generations. Its what other families have had to do. And its what my progeny will also have to do. If people don't adapt to the world around them, but expect the world to adapt to their every need--then who really is the petty one?
I see that this isn't going anywhere because your sympathy for the people in the third world whose QOL improves outweighs your concern for the first world people who see a pervasive decline in their own quality of life. But the first worlders who are forced into shittier conditions see their lives get worse and are less inclined to elect a leadership that would have that continue. As far as those people are concerned all third worlders can rot in hell if that is what it takes for them to live a better life.
Mind you, this isn't even the full picture of how it affects the third world. There is plenty of destruction to go around there as well.
|
On January 18 2017 05:41 xDaunt wrote:And people wonder why mainstream America has grown so distrustful of the current form of the Civil Rights Movement: Show nested quote +CNN analyst Marc Lamont Hill attacked a fellow panelist Monday for his work on Donald Trump‘s National Diversity Coalition, calling him a “mediocre Negro” being manipulated by Trump.
“I love Steve Harvey and I have respect for Steve Harvey and I think his intentions were appropriate, but my disagreement is the way in which he’s being used by folk like Donald Trump,” Hill said.
“They keep bringing up comedians and and actors athletes to represent black interests. It’s demeaning, it’s disrespectful, and it’s condescending,” he continued. “Bring some people up there with expertise Donald Trump, don’t just bring up people to entertain.”
“You weren’t even there…” responded Bruce LeVell, a member of Trump’s diversity team. “Pastor Darryl Scott, Mike Cohen, they are in the process of bringing all types of people from all over the country, from all different backgrounds. Remember the diversity coalition where we reached out to all different types of people?”
“Yeah, it was a bunch of mediocre Negroes being dragged in front of TV as a photo-op for Donald Trump’s exploitative campaign against black people. And you are an example of that,” Hill shot back.
Unsurprisingly, the conversation immediately devolved into shouting. “I’m not name-calling,” Hill insisted. Source. I know this may be surprising to hear, but xDaunt's selective outrage in the face of racially charged language hardly counts as "mainstream America." That's a meaninglessly nebulous thing to refer to, for one, and as for "the Civil Rights Movement," when it comes to pinning people up against movements using their words, it isn't exactly smart for someone who claims to love Milo to veer into that territory.
|
On January 18 2017 05:45 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2017 05:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 05:34 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 05:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 05:24 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 05:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 04:39 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 04:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 04:14 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 04:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
For context: This is only true in rich countries. Poor countries experience something very different. Elaborate, please. How is it different? As someone who grew up in a poor country and who has seen multiple islands from blossom into unseen prosperity; I really don't think you know what Globalization is actually doing to 3rd world countries. The benefit to them is not in doubt. I didn't imply as much - but you can absolutely get more out of them for less than you could from Americans. Would an American engineer work in Shitfuckistan for $20k/year, no benefits? Would a person from a nation with a median income of $500/year do the same? Would Americans who want to live a decent life lose out from that reality? Would the third worlders benefit? All depends on cost of living ratios vs social status importance. Lots of people would rather have worse cost of living ratios but live in SF or NY, while others would rather have higher cost of living ratios but live in shitfuckistan. The lower cost of workers in the Philippines and India has allowed call centers in those locations to actually ask more from its staff than the US. Higher education, better training, etc... Could they get cheaper? Sure they could--but why would they when they can get people with a masters in engineering as the customer support staff helping people with their laptop problems? Netflix is starting to move its centers to the Philippines--primarily because every time they start a center here in the states the americans keep calling the job shit and start yelling at customers. Because Americans look down at any job without prestige to it. Just because you have certain worries about globalization does not mean those worries are true, nor does it mean those worries are universal. $20k in Shitfuckistan is a lot better than $500 in India but worse than even $20k in Bumfuckville, Ohio, much less $60k in SF (still pretty shitty). Guess who is more inclined to take those jobs? Maybe we can require a PhD for our $20k/year workers in Shitfuckistan because there are so many willing Indians. But those prissy Americans just aren't up for it. It's clear who benefits - and who loses - from that arrangement. And the loser is the American middle class, easily. Incidentally, I myself am thankfully in a position that I would say would be called a "winner" in globalization. I can't say it feels like victory - I'd be better off overall if the conditions were as they were 40+ years ago - but I definitely make more money this way. But if you don't see the people who lose bigly from this arrangement then you would be delusional. Which is why, as I said, the only people who lose are the people who don't want to move to urban areas and who want to stay in towns without industry while not actively joining industries that better matches their social class. Just because the middle class are now people who live in the suburbs of the new economic centers of cities does not mean "the middle class" is dead. The middle class is simply different. It's not "cities" but increasingly so a few key megacities. A lot of urban centers are overall in decline. I am more inclined to sympathize with people who would rather not move to NY/SF/LA etc. to find work than to say that they're just inflexible fools. When an industry disappears, then you have to move. That's the nature of the world. Its what the poorest of the poor do in countries outside of the 1st world. Its why 3rd world countries have people emigrating to richer areas to work so they can send money back home. Its what my family has had to do for generations. Its what other families have had to do. And its what my progeny will also have to do. If people don't adapt to the world around them, but expect the world to adapt to their every need--then who really is the petty one? I see that this isn't going anywhere because your sympathy for the people in the third world whose QOL improves outweighs your concern for the first world people who see a pervasive decline in their own quality of life. But the first worlders who are forced into shittier conditions see their lives get worse and are less inclined to elect a leadership that would have that continue. As far as those people are concerned all third worlders can rot in hell if that is what it takes for them to live a better life.
I am simply pointing out that vilifying globalization will do nothing to solve the problems of social and economic inequality in the US. This is mostly because, globalization is something will happen, has always happened, and will continue to happen ad nausea.
The solution is never to prevent those manufacturing opportunities from leaving--they will leave based on economic realities, not because we will the company to stay. The solution comes from developing new industries, new economic systems, and providing people the ability to become more mobile in order for them to better adapt to a shifting landscape.
Its only a race to the bottom if the only option you leave on the table is the idealized american sweatshops from back before we had regulations.
|
On January 18 2017 05:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2017 05:45 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 05:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 05:34 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 05:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 05:24 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 05:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 04:39 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 04:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 04:14 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
Elaborate, please. How is it different? As someone who grew up in a poor country and who has seen multiple islands from blossom into unseen prosperity; I really don't think you know what Globalization is actually doing to 3rd world countries. The benefit to them is not in doubt. I didn't imply as much - but you can absolutely get more out of them for less than you could from Americans. Would an American engineer work in Shitfuckistan for $20k/year, no benefits? Would a person from a nation with a median income of $500/year do the same? Would Americans who want to live a decent life lose out from that reality? Would the third worlders benefit? All depends on cost of living ratios vs social status importance. Lots of people would rather have worse cost of living ratios but live in SF or NY, while others would rather have higher cost of living ratios but live in shitfuckistan. The lower cost of workers in the Philippines and India has allowed call centers in those locations to actually ask more from its staff than the US. Higher education, better training, etc... Could they get cheaper? Sure they could--but why would they when they can get people with a masters in engineering as the customer support staff helping people with their laptop problems? Netflix is starting to move its centers to the Philippines--primarily because every time they start a center here in the states the americans keep calling the job shit and start yelling at customers. Because Americans look down at any job without prestige to it. Just because you have certain worries about globalization does not mean those worries are true, nor does it mean those worries are universal. $20k in Shitfuckistan is a lot better than $500 in India but worse than even $20k in Bumfuckville, Ohio, much less $60k in SF (still pretty shitty). Guess who is more inclined to take those jobs? Maybe we can require a PhD for our $20k/year workers in Shitfuckistan because there are so many willing Indians. But those prissy Americans just aren't up for it. It's clear who benefits - and who loses - from that arrangement. And the loser is the American middle class, easily. Incidentally, I myself am thankfully in a position that I would say would be called a "winner" in globalization. I can't say it feels like victory - I'd be better off overall if the conditions were as they were 40+ years ago - but I definitely make more money this way. But if you don't see the people who lose bigly from this arrangement then you would be delusional. Which is why, as I said, the only people who lose are the people who don't want to move to urban areas and who want to stay in towns without industry while not actively joining industries that better matches their social class. Just because the middle class are now people who live in the suburbs of the new economic centers of cities does not mean "the middle class" is dead. The middle class is simply different. It's not "cities" but increasingly so a few key megacities. A lot of urban centers are overall in decline. I am more inclined to sympathize with people who would rather not move to NY/SF/LA etc. to find work than to say that they're just inflexible fools. When an industry disappears, then you have to move. That's the nature of the world. Its what the poorest of the poor do in countries outside of the 1st world. Its why 3rd world countries have people emigrating to richer areas to work so they can send money back home. Its what my family has had to do for generations. Its what other families have had to do. And its what my progeny will also have to do. If people don't adapt to the world around them, but expect the world to adapt to their every need--then who really is the petty one? I see that this isn't going anywhere because your sympathy for the people in the third world whose QOL improves outweighs your concern for the first world people who see a pervasive decline in their own quality of life. But the first worlders who are forced into shittier conditions see their lives get worse and are less inclined to elect a leadership that would have that continue. As far as those people are concerned all third worlders can rot in hell if that is what it takes for them to live a better life. I am simply pointing out that vilifying globalization will do nothing to solve the problems of social and economic inequality in the US. This is mostly because, globalization is something will happen, has always happened, and will continue to happen ad nausea. The solution is never to prevent those manufacturing opportunities from leaving--they will leave based on economic realities, not because we will the company to stay. The solution comes from developing new industries, new economic systems, and providing people the ability to become more mobile in order for them to better adapt to a shifting landscape. Its only a race to the bottom if the only option you leave on the table is the idealized american sweatshops from back before we had regulations.
I see you take the "globalization is inevitable, we just have to adapt" view. I can't say I agree. The next decade or so is going to see a severe backlash from the pro-nation-state groups and we will see where things go from there. If 2016 was any indication we are about to see shit go down in the foreseeable future.
|
So what does he do come the first domestic wreck?
|
Dunno. He hasn't been in office yet. But no number of twits nor denunciations is going to change the fact that he was elected president and isn't going anywhere, so I see little purpose in piling it on.
|
I assume Trump is pretty busy on the transition still. Being in a bubble at the moment hardly seems like something weird or wrong.
|
On January 18 2017 05:59 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2017 05:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 05:45 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 05:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 05:34 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 05:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 05:24 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 05:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 04:39 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 04:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
As someone who grew up in a poor country and who has seen multiple islands from blossom into unseen prosperity; I really don't think you know what Globalization is actually doing to 3rd world countries.
The benefit to them is not in doubt. I didn't imply as much - but you can absolutely get more out of them for less than you could from Americans. Would an American engineer work in Shitfuckistan for $20k/year, no benefits? Would a person from a nation with a median income of $500/year do the same? Would Americans who want to live a decent life lose out from that reality? Would the third worlders benefit? All depends on cost of living ratios vs social status importance. Lots of people would rather have worse cost of living ratios but live in SF or NY, while others would rather have higher cost of living ratios but live in shitfuckistan. The lower cost of workers in the Philippines and India has allowed call centers in those locations to actually ask more from its staff than the US. Higher education, better training, etc... Could they get cheaper? Sure they could--but why would they when they can get people with a masters in engineering as the customer support staff helping people with their laptop problems? Netflix is starting to move its centers to the Philippines--primarily because every time they start a center here in the states the americans keep calling the job shit and start yelling at customers. Because Americans look down at any job without prestige to it. Just because you have certain worries about globalization does not mean those worries are true, nor does it mean those worries are universal. $20k in Shitfuckistan is a lot better than $500 in India but worse than even $20k in Bumfuckville, Ohio, much less $60k in SF (still pretty shitty). Guess who is more inclined to take those jobs? Maybe we can require a PhD for our $20k/year workers in Shitfuckistan because there are so many willing Indians. But those prissy Americans just aren't up for it. It's clear who benefits - and who loses - from that arrangement. And the loser is the American middle class, easily. Incidentally, I myself am thankfully in a position that I would say would be called a "winner" in globalization. I can't say it feels like victory - I'd be better off overall if the conditions were as they were 40+ years ago - but I definitely make more money this way. But if you don't see the people who lose bigly from this arrangement then you would be delusional. Which is why, as I said, the only people who lose are the people who don't want to move to urban areas and who want to stay in towns without industry while not actively joining industries that better matches their social class. Just because the middle class are now people who live in the suburbs of the new economic centers of cities does not mean "the middle class" is dead. The middle class is simply different. It's not "cities" but increasingly so a few key megacities. A lot of urban centers are overall in decline. I am more inclined to sympathize with people who would rather not move to NY/SF/LA etc. to find work than to say that they're just inflexible fools. When an industry disappears, then you have to move. That's the nature of the world. Its what the poorest of the poor do in countries outside of the 1st world. Its why 3rd world countries have people emigrating to richer areas to work so they can send money back home. Its what my family has had to do for generations. Its what other families have had to do. And its what my progeny will also have to do. If people don't adapt to the world around them, but expect the world to adapt to their every need--then who really is the petty one? I see that this isn't going anywhere because your sympathy for the people in the third world whose QOL improves outweighs your concern for the first world people who see a pervasive decline in their own quality of life. But the first worlders who are forced into shittier conditions see their lives get worse and are less inclined to elect a leadership that would have that continue. As far as those people are concerned all third worlders can rot in hell if that is what it takes for them to live a better life. I am simply pointing out that vilifying globalization will do nothing to solve the problems of social and economic inequality in the US. This is mostly because, globalization is something will happen, has always happened, and will continue to happen ad nausea. The solution is never to prevent those manufacturing opportunities from leaving--they will leave based on economic realities, not because we will the company to stay. The solution comes from developing new industries, new economic systems, and providing people the ability to become more mobile in order for them to better adapt to a shifting landscape. Its only a race to the bottom if the only option you leave on the table is the idealized american sweatshops from back before we had regulations. I see you take the "globalization is inevitable, we just have to adapt" view. I can't say I agree. The next decade or so is going to see a severe backlash from the pro-nation-state groups and we will see where things go from there. If 2016 was any indication we are about to see shit go down in the foreseeable future.
I understand that, from an election standpoint, that the "globalization can't be stopped" message is... deflating at best, horrifying at worse. But no amount of yelling and screaming is going to stop businesses from just going elsewhere.
For example; do you know who will get hurt the most by trade wars? Middle Class and Poor America who will see the price of goods skyrocket as companies try to make up for the cost difference. Is it right of them to up the costs? I don't think so--but will they? Of course they will.
Now, we could establish a governmental body who is in charge of controlling prices--I am sure that worked out well for other communist countries.
Or maybe we could go full "free market" and just let god sort out the bodies? Hmm, that sounds shitty too.
Or, we could face globalization as it is, a realization that we live in a global economy and that we have to adapt in a global, not local, scale.
|
On January 18 2017 05:48 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2017 05:41 xDaunt wrote:And people wonder why mainstream America has grown so distrustful of the current form of the Civil Rights Movement: CNN analyst Marc Lamont Hill attacked a fellow panelist Monday for his work on Donald Trump‘s National Diversity Coalition, calling him a “mediocre Negro” being manipulated by Trump.
“I love Steve Harvey and I have respect for Steve Harvey and I think his intentions were appropriate, but my disagreement is the way in which he’s being used by folk like Donald Trump,” Hill said.
“They keep bringing up comedians and and actors athletes to represent black interests. It’s demeaning, it’s disrespectful, and it’s condescending,” he continued. “Bring some people up there with expertise Donald Trump, don’t just bring up people to entertain.”
“You weren’t even there…” responded Bruce LeVell, a member of Trump’s diversity team. “Pastor Darryl Scott, Mike Cohen, they are in the process of bringing all types of people from all over the country, from all different backgrounds. Remember the diversity coalition where we reached out to all different types of people?”
“Yeah, it was a bunch of mediocre Negroes being dragged in front of TV as a photo-op for Donald Trump’s exploitative campaign against black people. And you are an example of that,” Hill shot back.
Unsurprisingly, the conversation immediately devolved into shouting. “I’m not name-calling,” Hill insisted. Source. I know this may be surprising to hear, but xDaunt's selective outrage in the face of racially charged language hardly counts as "mainstream America." That's a meaninglessly nebulous thing to refer to, for one, and as for "the Civil Rights Movement," when it comes to pinning people up against movements using their words, it isn't exactly smart for someone who claims to love Milo to veer into that territory.
what is racially charged language though.
it's something that is very easy to define in theory but very hard to define once you get into the weeds. some people will hotly insist that talking about the higher crime rates in non-white non-asian communities is racially charged while others will just as hotly insist they're pointing out facts without casting any aspersions, some people will hotly insist that talk of implicit bias and privilege and such is racially charged language while others will just as hotly insist that they're pointing out facts.
On January 18 2017 06:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2017 05:59 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 05:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 05:45 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 05:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 05:34 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 05:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 05:24 LegalLord wrote:On January 18 2017 05:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 18 2017 04:39 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
The benefit to them is not in doubt. I didn't imply as much - but you can absolutely get more out of them for less than you could from Americans.
Would an American engineer work in Shitfuckistan for $20k/year, no benefits? Would a person from a nation with a median income of $500/year do the same? Would Americans who want to live a decent life lose out from that reality? Would the third worlders benefit? All depends on cost of living ratios vs social status importance. Lots of people would rather have worse cost of living ratios but live in SF or NY, while others would rather have higher cost of living ratios but live in shitfuckistan. The lower cost of workers in the Philippines and India has allowed call centers in those locations to actually ask more from its staff than the US. Higher education, better training, etc... Could they get cheaper? Sure they could--but why would they when they can get people with a masters in engineering as the customer support staff helping people with their laptop problems? Netflix is starting to move its centers to the Philippines--primarily because every time they start a center here in the states the americans keep calling the job shit and start yelling at customers. Because Americans look down at any job without prestige to it. Just because you have certain worries about globalization does not mean those worries are true, nor does it mean those worries are universal. $20k in Shitfuckistan is a lot better than $500 in India but worse than even $20k in Bumfuckville, Ohio, much less $60k in SF (still pretty shitty). Guess who is more inclined to take those jobs? Maybe we can require a PhD for our $20k/year workers in Shitfuckistan because there are so many willing Indians. But those prissy Americans just aren't up for it. It's clear who benefits - and who loses - from that arrangement. And the loser is the American middle class, easily. Incidentally, I myself am thankfully in a position that I would say would be called a "winner" in globalization. I can't say it feels like victory - I'd be better off overall if the conditions were as they were 40+ years ago - but I definitely make more money this way. But if you don't see the people who lose bigly from this arrangement then you would be delusional. Which is why, as I said, the only people who lose are the people who don't want to move to urban areas and who want to stay in towns without industry while not actively joining industries that better matches their social class. Just because the middle class are now people who live in the suburbs of the new economic centers of cities does not mean "the middle class" is dead. The middle class is simply different. It's not "cities" but increasingly so a few key megacities. A lot of urban centers are overall in decline. I am more inclined to sympathize with people who would rather not move to NY/SF/LA etc. to find work than to say that they're just inflexible fools. When an industry disappears, then you have to move. That's the nature of the world. Its what the poorest of the poor do in countries outside of the 1st world. Its why 3rd world countries have people emigrating to richer areas to work so they can send money back home. Its what my family has had to do for generations. Its what other families have had to do. And its what my progeny will also have to do. If people don't adapt to the world around them, but expect the world to adapt to their every need--then who really is the petty one? I see that this isn't going anywhere because your sympathy for the people in the third world whose QOL improves outweighs your concern for the first world people who see a pervasive decline in their own quality of life. But the first worlders who are forced into shittier conditions see their lives get worse and are less inclined to elect a leadership that would have that continue. As far as those people are concerned all third worlders can rot in hell if that is what it takes for them to live a better life. I am simply pointing out that vilifying globalization will do nothing to solve the problems of social and economic inequality in the US. This is mostly because, globalization is something will happen, has always happened, and will continue to happen ad nausea. The solution is never to prevent those manufacturing opportunities from leaving--they will leave based on economic realities, not because we will the company to stay. The solution comes from developing new industries, new economic systems, and providing people the ability to become more mobile in order for them to better adapt to a shifting landscape. Its only a race to the bottom if the only option you leave on the table is the idealized american sweatshops from back before we had regulations. I see you take the "globalization is inevitable, we just have to adapt" view. I can't say I agree. The next decade or so is going to see a severe backlash from the pro-nation-state groups and we will see where things go from there. If 2016 was any indication we are about to see shit go down in the foreseeable future. I understand that, from an election standpoint, that the "globalization can't be stopped" message is... deflating at best, horrifying at worse. But no amount of yelling and screaming is going to stop businesses from just going elsewhere. For example; do you know who will get hurt the most by trade wars? Middle Class and Poor America who will see the price of goods skyrocket as companies try to make up for the cost difference. Is it right of them to up the costs? I don't think so--but will they? Of course they will. Now, we could establish a governmental body who is in charge of controlling prices--I am sure that worked out well for other communist countries. Or maybe we could go full "free market" and just let god sort out the bodies? Hmm, that sounds shitty too. Or, we could face globalization as it is, a realization that we live in a global economy and that we have to adapt in a global, not local, scale.
yelling and screaming seems to be having an effect since november. all these corporations announcing they're investing this amount and that amount and creating this amount of jobs in the united states. doubtful that most of it would have happened if there was not a perception in these corporations that it would be very bad for their public image to be seen as not investing in america or whatever. since the majority or at least a great portion of their revenue comes from american consumers... they're willing to incur a bit more cost right now by investing in america rather than bangladesh or wherever so as to avoid a feared much larger loss of revenue from americans in the future.
it's a situation where the personal is the political and millions upon millions of people feel that way and in those situations pure economics sometimes can take a back seat in a way that it usually does not.
we'll see how much trump dislikes 'unfair free trade' if the situation arises where america regains some ground as far as manufacturing exports go and other countries start to feel grumpy about american competition in their local markets.
globalization, as it is, is something created by man, and anything created by man can be changed or destroyed by man. there are no irresistible natural forces outside man's ken pushing globalization. if people won't accept something then they won't accept it and will end it - even if ending it ultimately leaves them worse off. and it's a very open question as to whether putting the brakes on globalization and reversing some of it will leave people worse off or not.
|
On January 18 2017 06:29 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2017 05:48 farvacola wrote:On January 18 2017 05:41 xDaunt wrote:And people wonder why mainstream America has grown so distrustful of the current form of the Civil Rights Movement: CNN analyst Marc Lamont Hill attacked a fellow panelist Monday for his work on Donald Trump‘s National Diversity Coalition, calling him a “mediocre Negro” being manipulated by Trump.
“I love Steve Harvey and I have respect for Steve Harvey and I think his intentions were appropriate, but my disagreement is the way in which he’s being used by folk like Donald Trump,” Hill said.
“They keep bringing up comedians and and actors athletes to represent black interests. It’s demeaning, it’s disrespectful, and it’s condescending,” he continued. “Bring some people up there with expertise Donald Trump, don’t just bring up people to entertain.”
“You weren’t even there…” responded Bruce LeVell, a member of Trump’s diversity team. “Pastor Darryl Scott, Mike Cohen, they are in the process of bringing all types of people from all over the country, from all different backgrounds. Remember the diversity coalition where we reached out to all different types of people?”
“Yeah, it was a bunch of mediocre Negroes being dragged in front of TV as a photo-op for Donald Trump’s exploitative campaign against black people. And you are an example of that,” Hill shot back.
Unsurprisingly, the conversation immediately devolved into shouting. “I’m not name-calling,” Hill insisted. Source. I know this may be surprising to hear, but xDaunt's selective outrage in the face of racially charged language hardly counts as "mainstream America." That's a meaninglessly nebulous thing to refer to, for one, and as for "the Civil Rights Movement," when it comes to pinning people up against movements using their words, it isn't exactly smart for someone who claims to love Milo to veer into that territory. what is racially charged language though. it's something that is very easy to define in theory but very hard to define once you get into the weeds. some people will hotly insist that talking about the higher crime rates in non-white non-asian communities is racially charged while others will just as hotly insist they're pointing out facts without casting any aspersions, some people will hotly insist that talk of implicit bias and privilege and such is racially charged language while others will just as hotly insist that they're pointing out facts.
Welcome to upper division Humanties studies.
The truth is worse than the question you're asking--things like this is not something you "define" but is something you "discuss."
What that means is that the dialogue on the topic will shift and evolve, never reaching an answer because there is no answer. They are both right and both wrong at the same time. It is in the dialogue that we are able to glean what the trends are in hindsight, and we use that hindsight to attempt to discern what patterns in the present mean.
A good example of this is the way the dialogue about Neanderthals has evolved.
When neanderthals were first found, scientists argued that neanderthal genes were what made Africans more brutish and aggressive. However, now that DNA studies have shown neanderthals are actually much more synced with Europeans, the dialogue about Neanderthals is that they are actually intelligent, artistic, and communal.
Has this shift in analysis of Neanderthals happened because of racism (Oh, Neanderthals are white? They must be cool folks then.) Or has the shift happened because of better technologies (Oh, it turns out we were wrong about Neanderthals, turns out they are really _____)
The answer is a little bit of both, and we won't ever really know which one has more significance. The same can be said about crime rates. Is there more crime in black communities because they are black or because they are poor? Is there less crime in white communities because they rich or because they are white? The truth to both answers is that its a little bit of both.
|
On January 18 2017 05:48 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2017 05:41 xDaunt wrote:And people wonder why mainstream America has grown so distrustful of the current form of the Civil Rights Movement: CNN analyst Marc Lamont Hill attacked a fellow panelist Monday for his work on Donald Trump‘s National Diversity Coalition, calling him a “mediocre Negro” being manipulated by Trump.
“I love Steve Harvey and I have respect for Steve Harvey and I think his intentions were appropriate, but my disagreement is the way in which he’s being used by folk like Donald Trump,” Hill said.
“They keep bringing up comedians and and actors athletes to represent black interests. It’s demeaning, it’s disrespectful, and it’s condescending,” he continued. “Bring some people up there with expertise Donald Trump, don’t just bring up people to entertain.”
“You weren’t even there…” responded Bruce LeVell, a member of Trump’s diversity team. “Pastor Darryl Scott, Mike Cohen, they are in the process of bringing all types of people from all over the country, from all different backgrounds. Remember the diversity coalition where we reached out to all different types of people?”
“Yeah, it was a bunch of mediocre Negroes being dragged in front of TV as a photo-op for Donald Trump’s exploitative campaign against black people. And you are an example of that,” Hill shot back.
Unsurprisingly, the conversation immediately devolved into shouting. “I’m not name-calling,” Hill insisted. Source. I know this may be surprising to hear, but xDaunt's selective outrage in the face of racially charged language hardly counts as "mainstream America." That's a meaninglessly nebulous thing to refer to, for one, and as for "the Civil Rights Movement," when it comes to pinning people up against movements using their words, it isn't exactly smart for someone who claims to love Milo to veer into that territory.
You've completely missed the point. I don't care about the use of the racially charged language.
|
On January 18 2017 06:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2017 05:48 farvacola wrote:On January 18 2017 05:41 xDaunt wrote:And people wonder why mainstream America has grown so distrustful of the current form of the Civil Rights Movement: CNN analyst Marc Lamont Hill attacked a fellow panelist Monday for his work on Donald Trump‘s National Diversity Coalition, calling him a “mediocre Negro” being manipulated by Trump.
“I love Steve Harvey and I have respect for Steve Harvey and I think his intentions were appropriate, but my disagreement is the way in which he’s being used by folk like Donald Trump,” Hill said.
“They keep bringing up comedians and and actors athletes to represent black interests. It’s demeaning, it’s disrespectful, and it’s condescending,” he continued. “Bring some people up there with expertise Donald Trump, don’t just bring up people to entertain.”
“You weren’t even there…” responded Bruce LeVell, a member of Trump’s diversity team. “Pastor Darryl Scott, Mike Cohen, they are in the process of bringing all types of people from all over the country, from all different backgrounds. Remember the diversity coalition where we reached out to all different types of people?”
“Yeah, it was a bunch of mediocre Negroes being dragged in front of TV as a photo-op for Donald Trump’s exploitative campaign against black people. And you are an example of that,” Hill shot back.
Unsurprisingly, the conversation immediately devolved into shouting. “I’m not name-calling,” Hill insisted. Source. I know this may be surprising to hear, but xDaunt's selective outrage in the face of racially charged language hardly counts as "mainstream America." That's a meaninglessly nebulous thing to refer to, for one, and as for "the Civil Rights Movement," when it comes to pinning people up against movements using their words, it isn't exactly smart for someone who claims to love Milo to veer into that territory. You've completely missed the point. I don't care about the use of the racially charged language.
We are all fully aware what your thoughts on race are.
|
He "rarely leaves," maybe he's working hard?
He just met with MLK III, oh, that doesn't count as a "meaningful one-on-one interaction" according to the psychic on Twitter?
Speaking of being in a bubble, that random guy's Twitter feed reminds me of this:
All of this works because one group is as intoxicated by Twitter as Mr. Trump is: journalists. It’s hard to explain to a normal person — one of the 79 percent of American adults who don’t use Twitter — why the platform mesmerizes the news media. Its all-powerful search function means you can conjure material on any kind of news topic — or just spend your time searching for your own name. Reporters still crave the ego rush of a published byline, but that pales in comparison to the animated feedback loop that Twitter offers. The more time you spend, and the more tweets you send, the bigger your following becomes. But Twitter provides little actual reach — compared with Facebook or Google, it hardly drives any traffic to articles. It’s like a video game for professional validation.
Mr. Trump expertly exploits journalists’ unwavering attention to their Twitter feeds, their competitive spirit and their ingrained journalistic conventions — chiefly, that what the president says is inherently newsworthy. As a developer and reality show star, he lobbied the news media for coverage. Now journalists feel obligated to pay attention to him. Mr. Trump overwhelms the media with boatloads of what was once a rare commodity: access. He creates impressions faster than journalists can check them. By the time they turn up the facts, the news cycle has moved on to his next missive, leaving less time (and reader attention) for the stories Mr. Trump does not highlight on his feed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/15/arts/trump-twitter-and-the-art-of-his-deal.html
Because he's just willfully ignoring all the daily meetings PEOTUS has been having, not only interviewing for posts in the administration, but with everyone from tech leaders to Kissinger to Gore to MLK III... Who is he avoiding that he shouldn't? Meryl Streep? Example please. Essentially what that picture boils down to is "I bet Trump tends to spend time surrounded by people who are close to him." Yes - they're the next government.
|
I can't wait to see how Assange backs out of his promise to turn himself in if Obama pardoned Manning
|
On January 18 2017 06:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2017 06:29 DeepElemBlues wrote:On January 18 2017 05:48 farvacola wrote:On January 18 2017 05:41 xDaunt wrote:And people wonder why mainstream America has grown so distrustful of the current form of the Civil Rights Movement: CNN analyst Marc Lamont Hill attacked a fellow panelist Monday for his work on Donald Trump‘s National Diversity Coalition, calling him a “mediocre Negro” being manipulated by Trump.
“I love Steve Harvey and I have respect for Steve Harvey and I think his intentions were appropriate, but my disagreement is the way in which he’s being used by folk like Donald Trump,” Hill said.
“They keep bringing up comedians and and actors athletes to represent black interests. It’s demeaning, it’s disrespectful, and it’s condescending,” he continued. “Bring some people up there with expertise Donald Trump, don’t just bring up people to entertain.”
“You weren’t even there…” responded Bruce LeVell, a member of Trump’s diversity team. “Pastor Darryl Scott, Mike Cohen, they are in the process of bringing all types of people from all over the country, from all different backgrounds. Remember the diversity coalition where we reached out to all different types of people?”
“Yeah, it was a bunch of mediocre Negroes being dragged in front of TV as a photo-op for Donald Trump’s exploitative campaign against black people. And you are an example of that,” Hill shot back.
Unsurprisingly, the conversation immediately devolved into shouting. “I’m not name-calling,” Hill insisted. Source. I know this may be surprising to hear, but xDaunt's selective outrage in the face of racially charged language hardly counts as "mainstream America." That's a meaninglessly nebulous thing to refer to, for one, and as for "the Civil Rights Movement," when it comes to pinning people up against movements using their words, it isn't exactly smart for someone who claims to love Milo to veer into that territory. what is racially charged language though. it's something that is very easy to define in theory but very hard to define once you get into the weeds. some people will hotly insist that talking about the higher crime rates in non-white non-asian communities is racially charged while others will just as hotly insist they're pointing out facts without casting any aspersions, some people will hotly insist that talk of implicit bias and privilege and such is racially charged language while others will just as hotly insist that they're pointing out facts. Welcome to upper division Humanties studies. The truth is worse than the question you're asking--things like this is not something you "define" but is something you "discuss." What that means is that the dialogue on the topic will shift and evolve, never reaching an answer because there is no answer. They are both right and both wrong at the same time. It is in the dialogue that we are able to glean what the trends are in hindsight, and we use that hindsight to attempt to discern what patterns in the present mean. A good example of this is the way the dialogue about Neanderthals has evolved. When neanderthals were first found, scientists argued that neanderthal genes were what made Africans more brutish and aggressive. However, now that DNA studies have shown neanderthals are actually much more synced with Europeans, the dialogue about Neanderthals is that they are actually intelligent, artistic, and communal. Has this shift in analysis of Neanderthals happened because of racism (Oh, Neanderthals are white? They must be cool folks then.) Or has the shift happened because of better technologies (Oh, it turns out we were wrong about Neanderthals, turns out they are really _____) The answer is a little bit of both, and we won't ever really know which one has more significance. The same can be said about crime rates. Is there more crime in black communities because they are black or because they are poor? Is there less crime in white communities because they rich or because they are white? The truth to both answers is that its a little bit of both.
complexity doesn't mean truth can't be uncovered. or even directly make it harder to uncover. indirectly, however...
it does make it harder to grab and hold on to power though, so there is little incentive to acknowledge the complexity. which does make uncovering truth harder because...
really what these discussions are about is power. formal and informal, legal and social. who has it, what justifies having it, what justifies keeping it. few who discuss racial issues are discussing them as observers who are simply interested in the details and how they fit together so they can gain an accurate understanding of an engrossing topic. they're interested in wielding power or protecting the power they already wield.
|
On January 18 2017 06:52 Jaaaaasper wrote:
I can't wait to see how Assange backs out of his promise to turn himself in if Obama pardoned Manning
There's nothing to renege on because Obama did not pardon Manning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
