|
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. |
|
|
Has he actually called in the past? I know he used that one widow as a prop during his state of the union but is it a real tradition with him?
|
On October 17 2017 04:54 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 04:38 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 04:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
People who are homeless are already outside of "the system". How would they see a psychologist? How would they know they have free access to a psychologist? Who would want to subsidise psychologists anyways? They are already driven away from the "normal" support system of family and community, simply adding more available community probably would not have helped. If it was simply a case of pointing in the right direction, other government institutions can surely pick up that role. It's a bit strange though that there is such a large homeless problem in those cities. London is supposed to have a massive homeless problem, but yours seem to have a vastly larger scale and problem somehow. I more so mean this from a "starting fresh" perspective. People from puberty and beyond should absolutely be checking in with psychologists every now and then. Psychologists aren't just for "crazy" people. Anxiety, depression, self image, family issues, self confidence are all things that a huge majority of people suffer from yet don't get help for. How do you know that the psychologists know what they are doing? Are the psychologists there to treat the symptoms or the root cause?
Teaching some mental health maintenance techniques in early life would probably help very much. Kids who don't already suffer from depression or anxiety can be taught the skills to keep their mental health in check. Given the prevalence of mental health issues these days it should surely be worth it in every way. Healthier society etc.
|
On October 17 2017 04:54 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 04:38 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 04:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
People who are homeless are already outside of "the system". How would they see a psychologist? How would they know they have free access to a psychologist? Who would want to subsidise psychologists anyways? They are already driven away from the "normal" support system of family and community, simply adding more available community probably would not have helped. If it was simply a case of pointing in the right direction, other government institutions can surely pick up that role. It's a bit strange though that there is such a large homeless problem in those cities. London is supposed to have a massive homeless problem, but yours seem to have a vastly larger scale and problem somehow. I more so mean this from a "starting fresh" perspective. People from puberty and beyond should absolutely be checking in with psychologists every now and then. Psychologists aren't just for "crazy" people. Anxiety, depression, self image, family issues, self confidence are all things that a huge majority of people suffer from yet don't get help for. How do you know that the psychologists know what they are doing? Are the psychologists there to treat the symptoms or the root cause?
Psychologists handle both. They also tend to specialize in one thing or another. The way things normally go is: You search around for someone who specializes in what you are looking for some guidance on, you schedule an introductory meeting (sometimes free, always at least discounted) and they ask about your situation and tell you about how they tend to do things. From there, it is either a good fit or it isn't. You are always able to tell pretty early if it is a good fit or not.
Treatment varies a lot. If someone is in a really bad place, the first step can sometimes be to do damage control and get things back to stable, then focus on mechanisms etc. But it always involves both when everything is said and done. It is downright amazing just how much of what you would assume is "just who I am" is actually something that can be completely cured. If you'd like any other advice/guidance, feel free to PM me!
|
On October 17 2017 04:59 IyMoon wrote:Has he actually called in the past? I know he used that one widow as a prop during his state of the union but is it a real tradition with him?
This is a man who can’t be bothered. Obama would have known who contacted the family, what they said and how his staff had addressed the issue. He wouldn’t say “I’ll call when I think it’s worth my time.”
|
These still exist and are moving through the courts.
Edit: On a side note, someone pointed out that was the ground zero of politics in the 1990s. The whole goverment just stopped.
|
United States42830 Posts
While I have little doubt that Trump does grope women, given he is on record stating that he likes to grope women, it won't matter. How many college feminist voters does he have in the first place to lose? And how many of those live in swing states? The country isn't divided between those who think Trump is a sexual predator and those who aren't yet convinced. It's divided between those who don't like that he's a sexual predator and those who are at best apathetic and at worst enthusiastic about it.
|
On October 17 2017 06:18 KwarK wrote:
While I have little doubt that Trump does grope women, given he is on record stating that he likes to grope women, it won't matter. How many college feminist voters does he have in the first place to lose? And how many of those live in swing states? The country isn't divided between those who think Trump is a sexual predator and those who aren't yet convinced. It's divided between those who don't like that he's a sexual predator and those who are at best apathetic and at worst enthusiastic about it.
You give people way too much credit. The lengths that people will go to absolve him of his own words knows no bounds. "Locker room talk." "Just because he said it doesn't mean he does it." "They let him do it implies consent." "If he did that stuff why isn't he in jail." Etc.
|
On October 17 2017 06:37 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 06:18 KwarK wrote:
While I have little doubt that Trump does grope women, given he is on record stating that he likes to grope women, it won't matter. How many college feminist voters does he have in the first place to lose? And how many of those live in swing states? The country isn't divided between those who think Trump is a sexual predator and those who aren't yet convinced. It's divided between those who don't like that he's a sexual predator and those who are at best apathetic and at worst enthusiastic about it. You give people way too much credit. The lengths that people will go to absolve him of his own words knows no bounds. "Locker room talk." "Just because he said it doesn't mean he does it." "They let him do it implies consent." "If he did that stuff why isn't he in jail." Etc.
And those people will find any other possible (and impossible) excuse once their current one runs out.
|
On October 17 2017 06:18 KwarK wrote:
While I have little doubt that Trump does grope women, given he is on record stating that he likes to grope women, it won't matter. How many college feminist voters does he have in the first place to lose? And how many of those live in swing states? The country isn't divided between those who think Trump is a sexual predator and those who aren't yet convinced. It's divided between those who don't like that he's a sexual predator and those who are at best apathetic and at worst enthusiastic about it.
A lot of people wait until something legal happens. Trump being charged with sexual assault would be seen much worse than Trump openly admitting to sexual assault.
|
On October 17 2017 06:18 KwarK wrote:
While I have little doubt that Trump does grope women, given he is on record stating that he likes to grope women, it won't matter. How many college feminist voters does he have in the first place to lose? And how many of those live in swing states? The country isn't divided between those who think Trump is a sexual predator and those who aren't yet convinced. It's divided between those who don't like that he's a sexual predator and those who are at best apathetic and at worst enthusiastic about it.
To quote NPRs Ron Elving: None of it matters until all of it matters.
|
On October 17 2017 06:47 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 06:18 KwarK wrote:
While I have little doubt that Trump does grope women, given he is on record stating that he likes to grope women, it won't matter. How many college feminist voters does he have in the first place to lose? And how many of those live in swing states? The country isn't divided between those who think Trump is a sexual predator and those who aren't yet convinced. It's divided between those who don't like that he's a sexual predator and those who are at best apathetic and at worst enthusiastic about it. A lot of people wait until something legal happens. Trump being charged with sexual assault would be seen much worse than Trump openly admitting to sexual assault.
Exactly, people are innocent until proven guilty. Like Bill Clinton, who settled, and her wife who threatened the victims, but DNC voters didn't care because she is a woman and therefore has woman's best interest in mind.
If I was a part of the DNC I would realize by know this cheap tactics are pointless (guessing this is going nowhere) and simply wait. If Trump was actually found guilty, go apeshit on it.
|
Was there proof and legal charges on H.Clinton threatening victims or did you just get lost into your own innocent until proven guilty argument?
|
On October 17 2017 06:51 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 06:47 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 06:18 KwarK wrote:
While I have little doubt that Trump does grope women, given he is on record stating that he likes to grope women, it won't matter. How many college feminist voters does he have in the first place to lose? And how many of those live in swing states? The country isn't divided between those who think Trump is a sexual predator and those who aren't yet convinced. It's divided between those who don't like that he's a sexual predator and those who are at best apathetic and at worst enthusiastic about it. A lot of people wait until something legal happens. Trump being charged with sexual assault would be seen much worse than Trump openly admitting to sexual assault. Exactly, people are innocent until proven guilty. Like Bill Clinton, who settled, and her wife who threatened the victims, but DNC voters didn't care because she is a woman and therefore has woman's best interest in mind. If I was a part of the DNC I would realize by know this cheap tactics are pointless (guessing this is going nowhere) and simply wait. If Trump was actually found guilty, go apeshit on it.
Pretty sure its a civil case, innocent until proven guilty does not apply. And Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct promoted an congressional investigation.
On October 17 2017 06:54 Godwrath wrote:
Was there proof and legal charges on H.Clinton threatening victims or did you just get lost into your own innocent until proven guilty argument?
As far as I know none, but people like to repeat rumors like they are fact.
|
Now ya guys done it. Get ready for the Clinton interview about defending a rapist as a defense lawyer and all that stuff lol.
|
On October 17 2017 02:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 02:23 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 02:18 Plansix wrote:On October 17 2017 02:10 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 01:04 Plansix wrote:On October 17 2017 00:40 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 00:34 Plansix wrote:On October 17 2017 00:31 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 00:21 Sermokala wrote:
The issue is that no one wants to live near poverty so poverty has no.where.to go and.they end.up pooling in ghettos of crime and misery instead.of. Being spaced.out in a proper distribution so those people have a chance like everyone else.
good society dictates having communities.of low income spacced in with.higher.income. Nothing else.is.good or smart. Yeah. I come from a childhood of evictions, parental substance abuse and the whole kitchen sink of "shitty things about poverty". Despite that, I would never even consider living somewhere that puts me "near poverty". It is a deeply bad thing and it is not just single moms working night shift to support her 2 kids. There are some big issues. I don't want any of that near me or my eventual kids. The second I worked my way out of that, I said "and never again will this ever be even slightly a part of my life. Good day." Mixed income housing statistically shows better results that the “ghetto system” employed by some states and communities. Shoving all the poor people into one area just leads to problems, poorly funded schools and further marginalization. I don't doubt that. But in my area, at this time, I see some pretty black/white boundaries. I suppose I would vote in favor of putting the occasional poor building in a wealthier neighborhood. But I am way past the point of the whole "But we need to live amongst meth addicts so we can help them" mantra. It is not effective. Portland is basically a rotting corpse under the enormous spike of these weird not-actually-homeless late teens or early 20s kids who basically become max mad street people. Portland tried to crank up compassion to hyper liberal levels and all it did is make us have to clean needles from our playgrounds before kids go to recess. There are schools in Portland that now regularly have to clean up human shit and needles in the morning because of these people. It's this weird mix of people who are old and homeless, kids who just want to live as some sort of alternative society begging and stealing, and meth addicts. Far and away, the hands down worst group are these mad max types. I am sure if I dug into it, I would find that the surrounding towns and other areas don’t have any services to assist these folks. When you see communities trying to aid the homeless or addicted population, the attract more people seeking assistance from communities that are indifferent. If everyone just took care of their own homeless, you wouldn’t have that problem. And I am speaking from personal experience. I am from a very poor section of my state. I worked my church’s soup kitchen and pantry. I dealt with the community complaining that handing out medical supplies was causing “gangs from Springfield” to seek them from the church, which was totally true. But what are we going to do, not hand out first aid kits because old white people are scared Hispanic kids who just want medical suppies? I have also have worked on eviction cases for landlords. It is the area of law I am most familiar with. I’ve evicted more than a couple drug addicts. I can tell you that the constable and movers evicting the people are way more supportive than the landlords. The constable has driven people to shelters. These folks need help and the ability to exist someplace. Yeah, I understand and appreciate the mechanisms leading to all this. I'll always vote yes on tax increases or whatever to create these systems to help the disadvantaged. But I'm not moving to these areas. I'm not willing to be one of the ones to dilute the messiness of these communities. I will always pay a premium to not be in the midst of all this kinda stuff as it develops/improves etc. That is fine right up until the point where you bought a house and are now attempting to keep them out of your community. That is where this argument falls apart. Well, for whatever it's worth, I haven't bought a house and I'm not trying to keep anyone out. But as I look for houses, I am making sure the one I choose to buy is well enough insulated against this kinda degradation that I am seeing in certain areas. Let's say someone buys a house in a nice neighborhood and they paid money to be farther away from that kinda thing. Are they justified in voting against camping rules and whatnot? You are totally justified in voting for it. And I’m totally justified in thinking that person is an uncaring, self-centered piece of shit if they are fully aware of the difficulties homeless people face. I know plenty of liberal, well meaning people that get really into property rights once something is going to end up in their back yard. You can’t say you support something and then vote that thing out of your community. Well you can, but don’t expect to be applauded for it.
Mohdoo has a lot of pent up resentment and disgust at BLM and impoverished people. I'll just say that a big reason this shit doesn't get fixed is because the people with the capital to fix it would rather just move/gentrify and make the impoverished people someone else's (other impoverished people's) problem.
|
On October 17 2017 07:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 02:28 Plansix wrote:On October 17 2017 02:23 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 02:18 Plansix wrote:On October 17 2017 02:10 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 01:04 Plansix wrote:On October 17 2017 00:40 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 00:34 Plansix wrote:On October 17 2017 00:31 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 00:21 Sermokala wrote:
The issue is that no one wants to live near poverty so poverty has no.where.to go and.they end.up pooling in ghettos of crime and misery instead.of. Being spaced.out in a proper distribution so those people have a chance like everyone else.
good society dictates having communities.of low income spacced in with.higher.income. Nothing else.is.good or smart. Yeah. I come from a childhood of evictions, parental substance abuse and the whole kitchen sink of "shitty things about poverty". Despite that, I would never even consider living somewhere that puts me "near poverty". It is a deeply bad thing and it is not just single moms working night shift to support her 2 kids. There are some big issues. I don't want any of that near me or my eventual kids. The second I worked my way out of that, I said "and never again will this ever be even slightly a part of my life. Good day." Mixed income housing statistically shows better results that the “ghetto system” employed by some states and communities. Shoving all the poor people into one area just leads to problems, poorly funded schools and further marginalization. I don't doubt that. But in my area, at this time, I see some pretty black/white boundaries. I suppose I would vote in favor of putting the occasional poor building in a wealthier neighborhood. But I am way past the point of the whole "But we need to live amongst meth addicts so we can help them" mantra. It is not effective. Portland is basically a rotting corpse under the enormous spike of these weird not-actually-homeless late teens or early 20s kids who basically become max mad street people. Portland tried to crank up compassion to hyper liberal levels and all it did is make us have to clean needles from our playgrounds before kids go to recess. There are schools in Portland that now regularly have to clean up human shit and needles in the morning because of these people. It's this weird mix of people who are old and homeless, kids who just want to live as some sort of alternative society begging and stealing, and meth addicts. Far and away, the hands down worst group are these mad max types. I am sure if I dug into it, I would find that the surrounding towns and other areas don’t have any services to assist these folks. When you see communities trying to aid the homeless or addicted population, the attract more people seeking assistance from communities that are indifferent. If everyone just took care of their own homeless, you wouldn’t have that problem. And I am speaking from personal experience. I am from a very poor section of my state. I worked my church’s soup kitchen and pantry. I dealt with the community complaining that handing out medical supplies was causing “gangs from Springfield” to seek them from the church, which was totally true. But what are we going to do, not hand out first aid kits because old white people are scared Hispanic kids who just want medical suppies? I have also have worked on eviction cases for landlords. It is the area of law I am most familiar with. I’ve evicted more than a couple drug addicts. I can tell you that the constable and movers evicting the people are way more supportive than the landlords. The constable has driven people to shelters. These folks need help and the ability to exist someplace. Yeah, I understand and appreciate the mechanisms leading to all this. I'll always vote yes on tax increases or whatever to create these systems to help the disadvantaged. But I'm not moving to these areas. I'm not willing to be one of the ones to dilute the messiness of these communities. I will always pay a premium to not be in the midst of all this kinda stuff as it develops/improves etc. That is fine right up until the point where you bought a house and are now attempting to keep them out of your community. That is where this argument falls apart. Well, for whatever it's worth, I haven't bought a house and I'm not trying to keep anyone out. But as I look for houses, I am making sure the one I choose to buy is well enough insulated against this kinda degradation that I am seeing in certain areas. Let's say someone buys a house in a nice neighborhood and they paid money to be farther away from that kinda thing. Are they justified in voting against camping rules and whatnot? You are totally justified in voting for it. And I’m totally justified in thinking that person is an uncaring, self-centered piece of shit if they are fully aware of the difficulties homeless people face. I know plenty of liberal, well meaning people that get really into property rights once something is going to end up in their back yard. You can’t say you support something and then vote that thing out of your community. Well you can, but don’t expect to be applauded for it. Mohdoo has a lot of pent up resentment and disgust at BLM and impoverished people. I'll just say that a big reason this shit doesn't get fixed is because the people with the capital to fix it would rather just move/gentrify and make the impoverished people someone else's (other impoverished people's) problem.
Incorrect. I support most of BLM and vote in favor of taking my money and giving it to poor people every single time.
|
On October 17 2017 00:31 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 00:21 Sermokala wrote:
The issue is that no one wants to live near poverty so poverty has no.where.to go and.they end.up pooling in ghettos of crime and misery instead.of. Being spaced.out in a proper distribution so those people have a chance like everyone else.
good society dictates having communities.of low income spacced in with.higher.income. Nothing else.is.good or smart. Yeah. I come from a childhood of evictions, parental substance abuse and the whole kitchen sink of "shitty things about poverty". Despite that, I would never even consider living somewhere that puts me "near poverty". It is a deeply bad thing and it is not just single moms working night shift to support her 2 kids. There are some big issues. I don't want any of that near me or my eventual kids. The second I worked my way out of that, I said "and never again will this ever be even slightly a part of my life. Good day."
On October 17 2017 07:00 Mohdoo wrote:
Now ya guys done it. Get ready for the Clinton interview about defending a rapist as a defense lawyer and all that stuff lol.
I mean she did hire David Brock (famously smeared Anita Hill) and called one victim "some failed cabaret singer who doesn't have much of a resume to fall back on."
On October 17 2017 07:03 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 07:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 02:28 Plansix wrote:On October 17 2017 02:23 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 02:18 Plansix wrote:On October 17 2017 02:10 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 01:04 Plansix wrote:On October 17 2017 00:40 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 00:34 Plansix wrote:On October 17 2017 00:31 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
Yeah. I come from a childhood of evictions, parental substance abuse and the whole kitchen sink of "shitty things about poverty". Despite that, I would never even consider living somewhere that puts me "near poverty". It is a deeply bad thing and it is not just single moms working night shift to support her 2 kids. There are some big issues. I don't want any of that near me or my eventual kids. The second I worked my way out of that, I said "and never again will this ever be even slightly a part of my life. Good day." Mixed income housing statistically shows better results that the “ghetto system” employed by some states and communities. Shoving all the poor people into one area just leads to problems, poorly funded schools and further marginalization. I don't doubt that. But in my area, at this time, I see some pretty black/white boundaries. I suppose I would vote in favor of putting the occasional poor building in a wealthier neighborhood. But I am way past the point of the whole "But we need to live amongst meth addicts so we can help them" mantra. It is not effective. Portland is basically a rotting corpse under the enormous spike of these weird not-actually-homeless late teens or early 20s kids who basically become max mad street people. Portland tried to crank up compassion to hyper liberal levels and all it did is make us have to clean needles from our playgrounds before kids go to recess. There are schools in Portland that now regularly have to clean up human shit and needles in the morning because of these people. It's this weird mix of people who are old and homeless, kids who just want to live as some sort of alternative society begging and stealing, and meth addicts. Far and away, the hands down worst group are these mad max types. I am sure if I dug into it, I would find that the surrounding towns and other areas don’t have any services to assist these folks. When you see communities trying to aid the homeless or addicted population, the attract more people seeking assistance from communities that are indifferent. If everyone just took care of their own homeless, you wouldn’t have that problem. And I am speaking from personal experience. I am from a very poor section of my state. I worked my church’s soup kitchen and pantry. I dealt with the community complaining that handing out medical supplies was causing “gangs from Springfield” to seek them from the church, which was totally true. But what are we going to do, not hand out first aid kits because old white people are scared Hispanic kids who just want medical suppies? I have also have worked on eviction cases for landlords. It is the area of law I am most familiar with. I’ve evicted more than a couple drug addicts. I can tell you that the constable and movers evicting the people are way more supportive than the landlords. The constable has driven people to shelters. These folks need help and the ability to exist someplace. Yeah, I understand and appreciate the mechanisms leading to all this. I'll always vote yes on tax increases or whatever to create these systems to help the disadvantaged. But I'm not moving to these areas. I'm not willing to be one of the ones to dilute the messiness of these communities. I will always pay a premium to not be in the midst of all this kinda stuff as it develops/improves etc. That is fine right up until the point where you bought a house and are now attempting to keep them out of your community. That is where this argument falls apart. Well, for whatever it's worth, I haven't bought a house and I'm not trying to keep anyone out. But as I look for houses, I am making sure the one I choose to buy is well enough insulated against this kinda degradation that I am seeing in certain areas. Let's say someone buys a house in a nice neighborhood and they paid money to be farther away from that kinda thing. Are they justified in voting against camping rules and whatnot? You are totally justified in voting for it. And I’m totally justified in thinking that person is an uncaring, self-centered piece of shit if they are fully aware of the difficulties homeless people face. I know plenty of liberal, well meaning people that get really into property rights once something is going to end up in their back yard. You can’t say you support something and then vote that thing out of your community. Well you can, but don’t expect to be applauded for it. Mohdoo has a lot of pent up resentment and disgust at BLM and impoverished people. I'll just say that a big reason this shit doesn't get fixed is because the people with the capital to fix it would rather just move/gentrify and make the impoverished people someone else's (other impoverished people's) problem. Incorrect. I support most of BLM and vote in favor of taking my money and giving it to poor people every single time.
Bruh...
I also take pleasure in being able to be this condescending regarding BLM. They were such dipshits that a foreign government was able to rile them up and make them even more angry. They were used because their views were divisive and extreme, but also because of how gullible and longing for connection these fringe bags of shit tend to be.
That is textbook pent up resentment and disgust. And this "I'll vote to support poor people" doesn't mean a whole lot if you want to make sure they aren't anywhere near the community your vote influences.
|
On October 17 2017 07:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 00:31 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 00:21 Sermokala wrote:
The issue is that no one wants to live near poverty so poverty has no.where.to go and.they end.up pooling in ghettos of crime and misery instead.of. Being spaced.out in a proper distribution so those people have a chance like everyone else.
good society dictates having communities.of low income spacced in with.higher.income. Nothing else.is.good or smart. Yeah. I come from a childhood of evictions, parental substance abuse and the whole kitchen sink of "shitty things about poverty". Despite that, I would never even consider living somewhere that puts me "near poverty". It is a deeply bad thing and it is not just single moms working night shift to support her 2 kids. There are some big issues. I don't want any of that near me or my eventual kids. The second I worked my way out of that, I said "and never again will this ever be even slightly a part of my life. Good day." Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 07:00 Mohdoo wrote:
Now ya guys done it. Get ready for the Clinton interview about defending a rapist as a defense lawyer and all that stuff lol. I mean she did hire David Brock (famously smeared Anita Hill) and called one victim "some failed cabaret singer who doesn't have much of a resume to fall back on." Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 07:03 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 02:28 Plansix wrote:On October 17 2017 02:23 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 02:18 Plansix wrote:On October 17 2017 02:10 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 01:04 Plansix wrote:On October 17 2017 00:40 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 00:34 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Mixed income housing statistically shows better results that the “ghetto system” employed by some states and communities. Shoving all the poor people into one area just leads to problems, poorly funded schools and further marginalization. I don't doubt that. But in my area, at this time, I see some pretty black/white boundaries. I suppose I would vote in favor of putting the occasional poor building in a wealthier neighborhood. But I am way past the point of the whole "But we need to live amongst meth addicts so we can help them" mantra. It is not effective. Portland is basically a rotting corpse under the enormous spike of these weird not-actually-homeless late teens or early 20s kids who basically become max mad street people. Portland tried to crank up compassion to hyper liberal levels and all it did is make us have to clean needles from our playgrounds before kids go to recess. There are schools in Portland that now regularly have to clean up human shit and needles in the morning because of these people. It's this weird mix of people who are old and homeless, kids who just want to live as some sort of alternative society begging and stealing, and meth addicts. Far and away, the hands down worst group are these mad max types. I am sure if I dug into it, I would find that the surrounding towns and other areas don’t have any services to assist these folks. When you see communities trying to aid the homeless or addicted population, the attract more people seeking assistance from communities that are indifferent. If everyone just took care of their own homeless, you wouldn’t have that problem. And I am speaking from personal experience. I am from a very poor section of my state. I worked my church’s soup kitchen and pantry. I dealt with the community complaining that handing out medical supplies was causing “gangs from Springfield” to seek them from the church, which was totally true. But what are we going to do, not hand out first aid kits because old white people are scared Hispanic kids who just want medical suppies? I have also have worked on eviction cases for landlords. It is the area of law I am most familiar with. I’ve evicted more than a couple drug addicts. I can tell you that the constable and movers evicting the people are way more supportive than the landlords. The constable has driven people to shelters. These folks need help and the ability to exist someplace. Yeah, I understand and appreciate the mechanisms leading to all this. I'll always vote yes on tax increases or whatever to create these systems to help the disadvantaged. But I'm not moving to these areas. I'm not willing to be one of the ones to dilute the messiness of these communities. I will always pay a premium to not be in the midst of all this kinda stuff as it develops/improves etc. That is fine right up until the point where you bought a house and are now attempting to keep them out of your community. That is where this argument falls apart. Well, for whatever it's worth, I haven't bought a house and I'm not trying to keep anyone out. But as I look for houses, I am making sure the one I choose to buy is well enough insulated against this kinda degradation that I am seeing in certain areas. Let's say someone buys a house in a nice neighborhood and they paid money to be farther away from that kinda thing. Are they justified in voting against camping rules and whatnot? You are totally justified in voting for it. And I’m totally justified in thinking that person is an uncaring, self-centered piece of shit if they are fully aware of the difficulties homeless people face. I know plenty of liberal, well meaning people that get really into property rights once something is going to end up in their back yard. You can’t say you support something and then vote that thing out of your community. Well you can, but don’t expect to be applauded for it. Mohdoo has a lot of pent up resentment and disgust at BLM and impoverished people. I'll just say that a big reason this shit doesn't get fixed is because the people with the capital to fix it would rather just move/gentrify and make the impoverished people someone else's (other impoverished people's) problem. Incorrect. I support most of BLM and vote in favor of taking my money and giving it to poor people every single time. Bruh... Show nested quote +I also take pleasure in being able to be this condescending regarding BLM. They were such dipshits that a foreign government was able to rile them up and make them even more angry. They were used because their views were divisive and extreme, but also because of how gullible and longing for connection these fringe bags of shit tend to be. That is textbook pent up resentment and disgust. And this "I'll vote to support poor people" doesn't mean a whole lot if you want to make sure they aren't anywhere near the community your vote influences.
After I said that, I spent a lot of time explaining the nuance regarding which component of BLM I look down on. I will paste it here to remind you:
First of all, I apologize for my overly offensive and aggressive tone and language. I let my emotions get the better of me and I should be better than that. With that being said, I do think, under all the bullshit in my original post, I do have a hint of a point. I think I owe you a more expanded explanation of my view, so I did my best to fully flesh it out below:
Groups that are disenfranchised, have their rights taken away and are generally treated poorly are very likely to respond emotionally. These people get cynical, depressed, and feel like they can't control the world around them or even their own lives because they are subject to a bunch of shitty inequality stuff. But this kinda thing has a breaking point. People will either surrender to it and feel like they have no voice or anything or they go the opposite direction and adopt really strict, intense, unwavering ideology.
For people who have felt unempowered, weakened and victimized, intense ideology is something they hold on to very strongly. It can be extremely empowering to subscribe to unwavering belief structures. It is the same way people are radicalized in countries suffering from American imperialism. All those goat farmers or whatever in Afghanistan who get radicalized spent a great deal of their lives feeling like they could never do anything against the US.
This empowerment can be intoxicating and can kind of spiral out of control. People who suffer in this way can often actually end up feeling superior or particularly enlightened. They start to feel like they, and only they "really get it". It ends up spiraling out of control into a full on belief structure and a segregated movement. That's how you end up with some of these militant "kill all white people" fringe types that spin out of the larger BLM movement. While I largely agree with BLM, there are fringes within it that are downright nasty and unproductive.
Movements like what I am describing also spend a great deal of time assuring everyone that they aren't some fringe group, that there are many others who feel the same way and that their belief structure is the ultimate end. They will completely write off anything less aggressive/demanding and end up adopting "either with us or against us" where even groups who share many of the same goals are considered enemies. In that way, these people become a toxic liability. They make the situation worse and continue to try to convince everyone their movement is totally legitimate.
Russia sought out these groups and tried to artificially inflate their presence. Using bot farms and the like, social media activity made these groups appear more active by having more likes and shares and whatnot. This makes certain people more likely to say "Whoa, 10k likes? Is this movement an actual thing? Seems a lot of other people feel this way". The type of person who is looking for this kind of connection to a movement as a way of saving themselves from feeling powerless is who I was describing. They were too weak and impatient to resist subscribing to toxic yet empowering movements. They needed to finally feel like they were making a difference or rising up from where they were. By subscribing to these radical ideas, they are given a sense of progress and enlightenment. It is intoxicating and it is a relief from what they felt before.
But these people are just being used by Russia to divide us. It is a way to weaken these groups and the overall unity of the country. That's why I am so disappointed in them. They had real, legit issues that I totally back them up on. But then they went off the deep end, got condescending, combative and divisive. And for me, as someone who strongly identifies with many of their beliefs, and someone who has felt very weakened and powerless (though I fully admit my struggles are not nearly as bad as what many blacks deal with), I can't help but just be really disappointed and mourn losing them.
They feel empowered by the supposed size of their fringe movement, but the numbers are inflated by Russian operatives that know they are easily manipulated. This *does* give me a bit of satisfaction in knowing that these shmucks are just someone's puppet. I wish the situation were different, but it is what it is. I shouldn't feel that satisfaction, but there's a certain amount of "well then maybe don't be such a shit" lol.
Edit: In short, I support the goals of most of BLM and I am extremely disappointed in the sub-group of BLM that went wayyyyyyyyy off the deep and began cannibalizing its own.
|
On October 17 2017 07:14 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2017 07:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 00:31 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 00:21 Sermokala wrote:
The issue is that no one wants to live near poverty so poverty has no.where.to go and.they end.up pooling in ghettos of crime and misery instead.of. Being spaced.out in a proper distribution so those people have a chance like everyone else.
good society dictates having communities.of low income spacced in with.higher.income. Nothing else.is.good or smart. Yeah. I come from a childhood of evictions, parental substance abuse and the whole kitchen sink of "shitty things about poverty". Despite that, I would never even consider living somewhere that puts me "near poverty". It is a deeply bad thing and it is not just single moms working night shift to support her 2 kids. There are some big issues. I don't want any of that near me or my eventual kids. The second I worked my way out of that, I said "and never again will this ever be even slightly a part of my life. Good day." On October 17 2017 07:00 Mohdoo wrote:
Now ya guys done it. Get ready for the Clinton interview about defending a rapist as a defense lawyer and all that stuff lol. I mean she did hire David Brock (famously smeared Anita Hill) and called one victim "some failed cabaret singer who doesn't have much of a resume to fall back on." On October 17 2017 07:03 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 07:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 17 2017 02:28 Plansix wrote:On October 17 2017 02:23 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 02:18 Plansix wrote:On October 17 2017 02:10 Mohdoo wrote:On October 17 2017 01:04 Plansix wrote:On October 17 2017 00:40 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
I don't doubt that. But in my area, at this time, I see some pretty black/white boundaries. I suppose I would vote in favor of putting the occasional poor building in a wealthier neighborhood. But I am way past the point of the whole "But we need to live amongst meth addicts so we can help them" mantra. It is not effective. Portland is basically a rotting corpse under the enormous spike of these weird not-actually-homeless late teens or early 20s kids who basically become max mad street people. Portland tried to crank up compassion to hyper liberal levels and all it did is make us have to clean needles from our playgrounds before kids go to recess. There are schools in Portland that now regularly have to clean up human shit and needles in the morning because of these people. It's this weird mix of people who are old and homeless, kids who just want to live as some sort of alternative society begging and stealing, and meth addicts.
Far and away, the hands down worst group are these mad max types. I am sure if I dug into it, I would find that the surrounding towns and other areas don’t have any services to assist these folks. When you see communities trying to aid the homeless or addicted population, the attract more people seeking assistance from communities that are indifferent. If everyone just took care of their own homeless, you wouldn’t have that problem. And I am speaking from personal experience. I am from a very poor section of my state. I worked my church’s soup kitchen and pantry. I dealt with the community complaining that handing out medical supplies was causing “gangs from Springfield” to seek them from the church, which was totally true. But what are we going to do, not hand out first aid kits because old white people are scared Hispanic kids who just want medical suppies? I have also have worked on eviction cases for landlords. It is the area of law I am most familiar with. I’ve evicted more than a couple drug addicts. I can tell you that the constable and movers evicting the people are way more supportive than the landlords. The constable has driven people to shelters. These folks need help and the ability to exist someplace. Yeah, I understand and appreciate the mechanisms leading to all this. I'll always vote yes on tax increases or whatever to create these systems to help the disadvantaged. But I'm not moving to these areas. I'm not willing to be one of the ones to dilute the messiness of these communities. I will always pay a premium to not be in the midst of all this kinda stuff as it develops/improves etc. That is fine right up until the point where you bought a house and are now attempting to keep them out of your community. That is where this argument falls apart. Well, for whatever it's worth, I haven't bought a house and I'm not trying to keep anyone out. But as I look for houses, I am making sure the one I choose to buy is well enough insulated against this kinda degradation that I am seeing in certain areas. Let's say someone buys a house in a nice neighborhood and they paid money to be farther away from that kinda thing. Are they justified in voting against camping rules and whatnot? You are totally justified in voting for it. And I’m totally justified in thinking that person is an uncaring, self-centered piece of shit if they are fully aware of the difficulties homeless people face. I know plenty of liberal, well meaning people that get really into property rights once something is going to end up in their back yard. You can’t say you support something and then vote that thing out of your community. Well you can, but don’t expect to be applauded for it. Mohdoo has a lot of pent up resentment and disgust at BLM and impoverished people. I'll just say that a big reason this shit doesn't get fixed is because the people with the capital to fix it would rather just move/gentrify and make the impoverished people someone else's (other impoverished people's) problem. Incorrect. I support most of BLM and vote in favor of taking my money and giving it to poor people every single time. Bruh... I also take pleasure in being able to be this condescending regarding BLM. They were such dipshits that a foreign government was able to rile them up and make them even more angry. They were used because their views were divisive and extreme, but also because of how gullible and longing for connection these fringe bags of shit tend to be. That is textbook pent up resentment and disgust. And this "I'll vote to support poor people" doesn't mean a whole lot if you want to make sure they aren't anywhere near the community your vote influences. After I said that, I spent a lot of time explaining the nuance regarding which component of BLM I look down on. I will paste it here to remind you: Show nested quote +
First of all, I apologize for my overly offensive and aggressive tone and language. I let my emotions get the better of me and I should be better than that. With that being said, I do think, under all the bullshit in my original post, I do have a hint of a point. I think I owe you a more expanded explanation of my view, so I did my best to fully flesh it out below:
Groups that are disenfranchised, have their rights taken away and are generally treated poorly are very likely to respond emotionally. These people get cynical, depressed, and feel like they can't control the world around them or even their own lives because they are subject to a bunch of shitty inequality stuff. But this kinda thing has a breaking point. People will either surrender to it and feel like they have no voice or anything or they go the opposite direction and adopt really strict, intense, unwavering ideology.
For people who have felt unempowered, weakened and victimized, intense ideology is something they hold on to very strongly. It can be extremely empowering to subscribe to unwavering belief structures. It is the same way people are radicalized in countries suffering from American imperialism. All those goat farmers or whatever in Afghanistan who get radicalized spent a great deal of their lives feeling like they could never do anything against the US.
This empowerment can be intoxicating and can kind of spiral out of control. People who suffer in this way can often actually end up feeling superior or particularly enlightened. They start to feel like they, and only they "really get it". It ends up spiraling out of control into a full on belief structure and a segregated movement. That's how you end up with some of these militant "kill all white people" fringe types that spin out of the larger BLM movement. While I largely agree with BLM, there are fringes within it that are downright nasty and unproductive.
Movements like what I am describing also spend a great deal of time assuring everyone that they aren't some fringe group, that there are many others who feel the same way and that their belief structure is the ultimate end. They will completely write off anything less aggressive/demanding and end up adopting "either with us or against us" where even groups who share many of the same goals are considered enemies. In that way, these people become a toxic liability. They make the situation worse and continue to try to convince everyone their movement is totally legitimate.
Russia sought out these groups and tried to artificially inflate their presence. Using bot farms and the like, social media activity made these groups appear more active by having more likes and shares and whatnot. This makes certain people more likely to say "Whoa, 10k likes? Is this movement an actual thing? Seems a lot of other people feel this way". The type of person who is looking for this kind of connection to a movement as a way of saving themselves from feeling powerless is who I was describing. They were too weak and impatient to resist subscribing to toxic yet empowering movements. They needed to finally feel like they were making a difference or rising up from where they were. By subscribing to these radical ideas, they are given a sense of progress and enlightenment. It is intoxicating and it is a relief from what they felt before.
But these people are just being used by Russia to divide us. It is a way to weaken these groups and the overall unity of the country. That's why I am so disappointed in them. They had real, legit issues that I totally back them up on. But then they went off the deep end, got condescending, combative and divisive. And for me, as someone who strongly identifies with many of their beliefs, and someone who has felt very weakened and powerless (though I fully admit my struggles are not nearly as bad as what many blacks deal with), I can't help but just be really disappointed and mourn losing them.
They feel empowered by the supposed size of their fringe movement, but the numbers are inflated by Russian operatives that know they are easily manipulated. This *does* give me a bit of satisfaction in knowing that these shmucks are just someone's puppet. I wish the situation were different, but it is what it is. I shouldn't feel that satisfaction, but there's a certain amount of "well then maybe don't be such a shit" lol.
I'll start by reminding you that apologizing doesn't mean you don't have it, just that you were regretful that I called you out on it (and you didn't apologize until after trying to deny you did anything wrong).
Secondly, that was crap when you said it.
It ended with me reminding you of this:
The CNN article said something different than what you said.
It talks about:
"CNN reported Wednesday that at least one of the Facebook ads bought by Russians during the 2016 presidential campaign referenced Black Lives Matter and was specifically targeted to reach audiences in Ferguson, Missouri and Baltimore,"
But what you were doing was:
You're hyping the hell out of that and/or some farmed likes, as if they were master manipulators which was some core driver for anything substantial, the CNN article doesn't try to say that.
You turned "Russia spent some time/money, (like less than .0001 of the money spent on the election) on some ads aimed at people that are rightfully angry" Into some absurd and ridiculous way to justify your pent up resentment for movements like BLM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
