EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 8089
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
KwarK
United States44191 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Kickboxer
Slovenia1308 Posts
Nobody dreams of becoming Duke Nukem or a freaking Hydralisk. Now go and ask your typical underprivileged 11-year-old where they see themselves a decade down the line. The answer might surprise you ... more than likely it involves golden chains, "hoes" and a domestic armory. None of which (except the hoes maybe) make any sense even if you happen to be rich. I don't even understand. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22471 Posts
On July 14 2017 07:17 mozoku wrote: The world isn't split into "meritocracies" and "non-meritocracies." Nor is only the world's purest meritocracy the only meritocracy. If you are born in the US in, say, the 20th percentile or above, then you can reliably rise to 70th or 80th percentile income by your mid-30s. Most people don't, but most people don't spend as much time on their schoolwork and productive extracurricular activities as they could/should either. I define that as a rough meritocracy. Of course, it can always be improved. I'm making these numbers up, but I'm confident enough that they're roughly true based on personal experience. Some people are truly unfortunate and it's very difficult to climb the socioeconomic ladder for them due to the situation they were placed in. That's sad, and worth trying to fix as best as we can. No where am I talking in absolutes, way to try and dismiss the argument. Social mobility in the US is shit compared to many other first world nations as shown by numerous statistics and studies. Does that mean is doesn't exist? No, it means its worse then in other developed nations. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44191 Posts
| ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
On July 14 2017 07:37 Gorsameth wrote: No where am I talking in absolutes, way to try and dismiss the argument. Social mobility in the US is shit compared to many other first world nations as shown by numerous statistics and studies. Does that mean is doesn't exist? No, it means its worse then in other developed nations. I misunderstood your phrase "There is your answer to meritocracy in the US" and took it to mean absolutes. My bad. Other than that, I don't think we disagree. I think the system I described is reasonably fair for most people. I should also note that, if one is intelligent and/or lucky, it's quite possible can rise far beyond the 70-80th percentile from 20th or so. My original statement was under the assumption of someone of average intelligence without well-connected parents, freakish athletic skills, etc. Of course it can be improved. Kudos for Europe if they're doing better on the meritocracy part. That doesn't make America's system broken or horribly unfair (with unfortunate exceptions that I'm sure occur in Europe as well, perhaps in smaller numbers). | ||
|
IyMoon
United States1249 Posts
On July 14 2017 07:38 KwarK wrote: Some kids dream of being progamers and end up maladjusted neckbeards shouting slurs at their supports and fighting over mid. Are you.... are you talking about me? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24138 Posts
On July 14 2017 07:36 Kickboxer wrote: This is your second post that shows clear bias, sorry. Nobody dreams of becoming Duke Nukem or a freaking Hydralisk. Now go and ask your typical underprivileged 11-year-old where they see themselves a decade down the line. The answer might surprise you ... more than likely it involves golden chains, "hoes" and a domestic armory. None of which (except the hoes maybe) make any sense even if you happen to be rich. I don't even understand. You got part of that right. But remember, like the Lupe song pointed out, it's white people getting rich off of all of it. The guns, the drugs, the jewelry, the cars, the alcohol, all of it. Those are all white dominated businesses (in the US). That's why they are the ones promoting it all and driving it to their bottom line. Like I said, you're blaming the black faces they put on their cruelty capitalism instead of the industry and system that intentionally promotes and profits from it. On July 14 2017 07:41 mozoku wrote: I misunderstood your phrase "There is your answer to meritocracy in the US" and took it to mean absolutes. My bad. Other than that, I don't think we disagree. I think the system I described is reasonably fair for most people. Of course it can be improved. Kudos for Europe if they're doing better on the meritocracy part. That doesn't make America's system broken or horribly unfair (with unfortunate exceptions). You got it backwards, it is horribly unfair with fortunate exceptions. | ||
|
Kickboxer
Slovenia1308 Posts
When corporations want to "put a face" on something it tends to look like Justin Bieber. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24138 Posts
On July 14 2017 07:44 Kickboxer wrote: I don't care who's getting rich off of it. In that case, it's even more stupid. The content was clearly invented and generated by black people. It's like pissing in your own lemonade then blaming the white guy for selling glasses. Well there's a bunch of different things being conflated. Yes rap/hip-hop is absolutely a black invention. Yes there is a wide variety of what that is. No it's not "pissing in your own lemonade then blaming the white guy for selling glasses". It's more like the white guy pissing on you, but he's willing to sell you glasses if you agree to sell his piss to your people as desirable. That gets into a much deeper analysis of how black people in America got to be Black people in America than you seem interested in though. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20255 Posts
On July 14 2017 07:49 GreenHorizons wrote: Well there's a bunch of different things being conflated. Yes rap/hip-hop is absolutely a black invention. Yes there is a wide variety of what that is. No it's not "pissing in your own lemonade then blaming the white guy for selling glasses". It's more like the white guy pissing on you, but he's willing to sell you glasses if you agree to sell his piss to your people as desirable. That gets into a much deeper analysis of how black people in America got to be Black people in America than you seem interested in though. Are you basically calling successful black rappers and other entertainers sellouts who purposefully and knowingly fucked over black people? | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On July 14 2017 07:41 mozoku wrote: I misunderstood your phrase "There is your answer to meritocracy in the US" and took it to mean absolutes. My bad. Other than that, I don't think we disagree. I think the system I described is reasonably fair for most people. I should also note that, if one is intelligent and/or lucky, it's quite possible can rise far beyond the 70-80th percentile from 20th or so. My original statement was under the assumption of someone of average intelligence without well-connected parents, freakish athletic skills, etc. Of course it can be improved. Kudos for Europe if they're doing better on the meritocracy part. That doesn't make America's system broken or horribly unfair (with unfortunate exceptions that I'm sure occur in Europe as well, perhaps in smaller numbers). So how do you explain the article I posted on the last page? | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/the-american-dream-isnt-alive-in-denmark/494141/ You're better off adjusting for social inequality through the commons rather than trying to turn everybody into a nuclear physicist. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On July 14 2017 07:05 Kickboxer wrote: It would certainly be helpful to the POC cause if over 80% of the rich and successful black men didn't publicly state their priorities as: 1) shake dat ass / we don't love dem hoes (...goes on to marry a white woman) 2) boom boom, glock, shoot niggaz 3) diamond rimz ... dolla dolla For every DeGrasse or Freeman out there, a dozen frothing morons are promoting what seems like the most toxic and pointless lifestyle possible - the pursuit of which is sure to land you in jail or dead. I don't see much public resistance to this movement. There's a distinctive difference between black celebrity and all other types of celebrity and if that's another racist observation I just don't know why even have this debate. Are those good role models? When white people do trap, at least they talk about suicide via alcohol or something adorably degenerate. And when Asians do trap it's just fun. Why? That style was promoted over the original more politics oriented rap once it became clear that Public Enemy/NWA were um, actually kind of threatening to the politics of white people. | ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
On July 14 2017 07:59 IgnE wrote: So how do you explain the article I posted on the last page? I don't have access to it. My guess is that it measures income ladder movement though, which isn't the same as potential for income ladder movement. The opportunity for class mobility is mostly available, but it takes extraordinary effort or extraordinary laziness on your part relative to your peers. There is inertia for various reasons, so most people won't achieve class mobility--which is what is probably captured in the article. I made a ton of assumptions in the previous paragraph, but I figured it was better than a one-line post. | ||
|
Trainrunnef
United States601 Posts
On July 14 2017 08:10 Nevuk wrote: That style was promoted over the original more politics oriented rap once it became clear that Public Enemy/NWA were um, actually kind of threatening to the politics of white people. Not to mention the fact that 80% of successful black men have nothing to do with rap music. It's like hopping back in time to when rock music was the new kid on the block and assuming that rockers made up 80% of successful white men. @kick Get a grip dude, your prejudice is showing. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
Our country is run by insecure sociopaths. This is the best lawyer Trump could find. This is a professional. The fucking guy can't even structure a proper fucking sentence, in his threat-laden responses to random e-mails. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24138 Posts
On July 14 2017 07:59 Slaughter wrote: Are you basically calling successful black rappers and other entertainers sellouts who purposefully and knowingly fucked over black people? Some of them, yes. But I don't think they represent "80%" of successful black people. There's long been a struggle within black communities about how to be successful in a racist America. Often a condition of black success (though not unique to black people) is the condition that in order to advance, you must help perpetuate holding others down. So it's not something I rest the entirety of on the individual. Like old slave songs though, there's often a message hidden within the songs that largely eludes white people. There is a lot of different black entertainment out there, some of it constructive, some of it destructive. The myth is that the black community only wants to show itself and emulate the destructive stuff, neglecting both the parity in white communities and the role white America plays in it's perpetuation. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On July 14 2017 08:09 Nyxisto wrote: I wish we could just ditch the idea of 'social mobility'. It's not really a thing. A study on Denmark showed that, if not adjusted for social welfare, Denmark showed the same lack of mobility as the US does. In other words, the huge mobility of some European countries is simply a social welfare program that compresses the income ladder. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/the-american-dream-isnt-alive-in-denmark/494141/ You're better off adjusting for social inequality through the commons rather than trying to turn everybody into a nuclear physicist. I mean, of course. If there's mobility upwards -- then there's mobility downwards. Not everyone can have top-paying jobs. So, I agree, the term "mobility" is kind of a misnomer. Although, I think the article misses some points. Primarily on education. Actually -- it doesn't even mention education. That's kind of a crazy-large blind-spot to have on the issue. Because it is easier for a low-income Dane to receive top-quality education, compared to a low-income American. And that does mean more opportunity for all. And, of course, we shouldn't ignore that social-welfare simply does improve people's lives, and that, at its surface, is a perfectly good thing. | ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
On July 14 2017 07:59 IgnE wrote: So how do you explain the article I posted on the last page? I found a copy. I only took a skim through (I'll try to read it in more detail later), but I don't see how a weakly predictive/significant grandfather effect in a huge sample in a model that explains 20% of the response variable (years of education) is evidence that anything I've said is false, or is strong evidence that social mobility isn't alive. There's a big difference between practical significance and statistical significance. That said, I'll look over it in more detail later to make sure I fully understand their model and give better conclusions later. | ||
| ||
