|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States41989 Posts
On June 04 2018 03:25 sc-darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2018 03:21 KwarK wrote:On June 03 2018 23:58 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2018 23:36 micronesia wrote:
I wonder what would happen if a company put out a commercial for a kitchen product involving a man doing the kitchen chores. It would probably get a lot of attention which I think would be good publicity and a way to help break out of the mold. Imagine if companies stopped putting out commercials showing an affable dunce of a man totally sucking at household chores? He’s the comedy angle. Frequently he made the mess and woman with Product A smiles knowingly. Preface: I don't support that male stereotype and think it's part of a generally demeaning image of male household labour that leads to shit like men "babysitting" when they're taking care of their own kids etc. It sucks and it should change. To give an example, there is an awful lot of anti-white racism and stereotyping in China, that white people are cheats, that they will try to steal given any opportunity, that kind of thing. But I can laugh about it because I don't need shit from any racist Chinese person because I'm white, have a professional career, and am reasonably affluent. They have no power over me. The stereotype that men are overgrown babies that are incapable of taking care of their own homes is shitty, and hopefully it will change. But it's not as damaging as a lazy Mexican stereotype. You realise how this could be interpreted as white superiority, right? The same thing (ignoring racial implications) you were accusing me of about Dove's advert. Oops!  Are you going to edit your post now?
No, not at all. It's essentially the heart of my post. I benefit from a racist system in which racism against whites really can't do shit to hurt me because white people have all the cards. I'm not better than others because I'm white, but I'm certainly treated better.
If I lived in China and couldn't get a job because racist Chinese employers thought I would steal from them or faced rejection from a Chinese fiancee's family then that would be different, if I lived in China then the power dynamic would be different. But I'm white English living in America, even within the whites I still outrank white Irish, white Italian, and so forth. In terms of the racial power hierarchy, I'm as high as it goes. Anti-white racism can't hurt me because I've already won by being white.
Negative stereotypes are bad, but the impact is weighted by the position of the recipient within society. Punching up and punching down are both punching, but they're not directly comparable in impact.
|
On June 04 2018 03:25 sc-darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2018 03:21 KwarK wrote:On June 03 2018 23:58 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2018 23:36 micronesia wrote:
I wonder what would happen if a company put out a commercial for a kitchen product involving a man doing the kitchen chores. It would probably get a lot of attention which I think would be good publicity and a way to help break out of the mold. Imagine if companies stopped putting out commercials showing an affable dunce of a man totally sucking at household chores? He’s the comedy angle. Frequently he made the mess and woman with Product A smiles knowingly. Preface: I don't support that male stereotype and think it's part of a generally demeaning image of male household labour that leads to shit like men "babysitting" when they're taking care of their own kids etc. It sucks and it should change. To give an example, there is an awful lot of anti-white racism and stereotyping in China, that white people are cheats, that they will try to steal given any opportunity, that kind of thing. But I can laugh about it because I don't need shit from any racist Chinese person because I'm white, have a professional career, and am reasonably affluent. They have no power over me. The stereotype that men are overgrown babies that are incapable of taking care of their own homes is shitty, and hopefully it will change. But it's not as damaging as a lazy Mexican stereotype. You realise how this could be interpreted as white superiority, right? The same thing (ignoring racial implications) you were accusing me of about Dove's advert. Oops! Are you going to edit your post now? There is a difference between "I am white and therefor better" and "society is biased in favor of white people (unfairly so) and I happen to be white"
|
On June 04 2018 03:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2018 03:25 sc-darkness wrote:On June 04 2018 03:21 KwarK wrote:On June 03 2018 23:58 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2018 23:36 micronesia wrote:
I wonder what would happen if a company put out a commercial for a kitchen product involving a man doing the kitchen chores. It would probably get a lot of attention which I think would be good publicity and a way to help break out of the mold. Imagine if companies stopped putting out commercials showing an affable dunce of a man totally sucking at household chores? He’s the comedy angle. Frequently he made the mess and woman with Product A smiles knowingly. Preface: I don't support that male stereotype and think it's part of a generally demeaning image of male household labour that leads to shit like men "babysitting" when they're taking care of their own kids etc. It sucks and it should change. To give an example, there is an awful lot of anti-white racism and stereotyping in China, that white people are cheats, that they will try to steal given any opportunity, that kind of thing. But I can laugh about it because I don't need shit from any racist Chinese person because I'm white, have a professional career, and am reasonably affluent. They have no power over me. The stereotype that men are overgrown babies that are incapable of taking care of their own homes is shitty, and hopefully it will change. But it's not as damaging as a lazy Mexican stereotype. You realise how this could be interpreted as white superiority, right? The same thing (ignoring racial implications) you were accusing me of about Dove's advert. Oops! Are you going to edit your post now? No, not at all. It's essentially the heart of my post. I benefit from a racist system in which racism against whites really can't do shit to hurt me because white people have all the cards. I'm not better than others because I'm white, but I'm certainly treated better. If I lived in China and couldn't get a job because racist Chinese employers thought I would steal from them or faced rejection from a Chinese fiancee's family then that would be different, if I lived in China then the power dynamic would be different. But I'm white English living in America, even within the whites I still outrank white Irish, white Italian, and so forth. In terms of the racial power hierarchy, I'm as high as it goes. Anti-white racism can't hurt me because I've already won by being white. Negative stereotypes are bad, but the impact is weighted by the position of the recipient within society. Punching up and punching down are both punching, but they're not directly comparable in impact.
The position of the recipient within society is determined in a much larger part by class, than by ethnicity.
|
On June 04 2018 03:44 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2018 03:32 KwarK wrote:On June 04 2018 03:25 sc-darkness wrote:On June 04 2018 03:21 KwarK wrote:On June 03 2018 23:58 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2018 23:36 micronesia wrote:
I wonder what would happen if a company put out a commercial for a kitchen product involving a man doing the kitchen chores. It would probably get a lot of attention which I think would be good publicity and a way to help break out of the mold. Imagine if companies stopped putting out commercials showing an affable dunce of a man totally sucking at household chores? He’s the comedy angle. Frequently he made the mess and woman with Product A smiles knowingly. Preface: I don't support that male stereotype and think it's part of a generally demeaning image of male household labour that leads to shit like men "babysitting" when they're taking care of their own kids etc. It sucks and it should change. To give an example, there is an awful lot of anti-white racism and stereotyping in China, that white people are cheats, that they will try to steal given any opportunity, that kind of thing. But I can laugh about it because I don't need shit from any racist Chinese person because I'm white, have a professional career, and am reasonably affluent. They have no power over me. The stereotype that men are overgrown babies that are incapable of taking care of their own homes is shitty, and hopefully it will change. But it's not as damaging as a lazy Mexican stereotype. You realise how this could be interpreted as white superiority, right? The same thing (ignoring racial implications) you were accusing me of about Dove's advert. Oops! Are you going to edit your post now? No, not at all. It's essentially the heart of my post. I benefit from a racist system in which racism against whites really can't do shit to hurt me because white people have all the cards. I'm not better than others because I'm white, but I'm certainly treated better. If I lived in China and couldn't get a job because racist Chinese employers thought I would steal from them or faced rejection from a Chinese fiancee's family then that would be different, if I lived in China then the power dynamic would be different. But I'm white English living in America, even within the whites I still outrank white Irish, white Italian, and so forth. In terms of the racial power hierarchy, I'm as high as it goes. Anti-white racism can't hurt me because I've already won by being white. Negative stereotypes are bad, but the impact is weighted by the position of the recipient within society. Punching up and punching down are both punching, but they're not directly comparable in impact. The position of the recipient within society is determined in a much larger part by class, than by ethnicity.
Not in the US. Though obviously class always plays a role as well. Additionally race and class are inextricably connected in the US (ethnicity coming after both).
|
United States41989 Posts
In other news, based on a non scientific sample of a few thousand Social Studies exams from 11 year old kids from Kentucky that I've read over the last two weeks, American children believe that all employees within a business are paid equally and that any other allocation of profits would be unfair. They're not arguing for equal division of profits between employees, they think that's the default, they don't realize that it would be a thing that anyone would need to argue for because they don't know that there is another model.
I welcome the new generation of egalitarians.
|
On June 04 2018 03:47 KwarK wrote:
In other news, based on a non scientific sample of a few thousand Social Studies exams from 11 year old kids from Kentucky that I've read over the last two weeks, American children believe that all employees within a business are paid equally and that any other allocation of profits would be unfair. They're not arguing for equal division of profits between employees, they think that's the default, they don't realize that it would be a thing that anyone would need to argue for because they don't know that there is another model.
I welcome the new generation of egalitarians.
Unfortunately there might not be much to share by the time they get a chance
In case you've been living under a rock, Republicans now control the House, the Senate, the presidency, and the overwhelming majority of state legislatures and governorships. This new poll from Suffolk University illustrates just how that's possible. Here are the base results of the poll with favorable/unfavorable ratings.
Pence: 47%/35%
Trump: 45%/47%
GOP: 37%/48%
Media: 37%/50%
Dem Party: 36%/52%
Hillary: 35%/55%
Congress: 26%/52%
www.nydailynews.com
|
United States41989 Posts
On June 04 2018 03:44 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2018 03:32 KwarK wrote:On June 04 2018 03:25 sc-darkness wrote:On June 04 2018 03:21 KwarK wrote:On June 03 2018 23:58 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2018 23:36 micronesia wrote:
I wonder what would happen if a company put out a commercial for a kitchen product involving a man doing the kitchen chores. It would probably get a lot of attention which I think would be good publicity and a way to help break out of the mold. Imagine if companies stopped putting out commercials showing an affable dunce of a man totally sucking at household chores? He’s the comedy angle. Frequently he made the mess and woman with Product A smiles knowingly. Preface: I don't support that male stereotype and think it's part of a generally demeaning image of male household labour that leads to shit like men "babysitting" when they're taking care of their own kids etc. It sucks and it should change. To give an example, there is an awful lot of anti-white racism and stereotyping in China, that white people are cheats, that they will try to steal given any opportunity, that kind of thing. But I can laugh about it because I don't need shit from any racist Chinese person because I'm white, have a professional career, and am reasonably affluent. They have no power over me. The stereotype that men are overgrown babies that are incapable of taking care of their own homes is shitty, and hopefully it will change. But it's not as damaging as a lazy Mexican stereotype. You realise how this could be interpreted as white superiority, right? The same thing (ignoring racial implications) you were accusing me of about Dove's advert. Oops! Are you going to edit your post now? No, not at all. It's essentially the heart of my post. I benefit from a racist system in which racism against whites really can't do shit to hurt me because white people have all the cards. I'm not better than others because I'm white, but I'm certainly treated better. If I lived in China and couldn't get a job because racist Chinese employers thought I would steal from them or faced rejection from a Chinese fiancee's family then that would be different, if I lived in China then the power dynamic would be different. But I'm white English living in America, even within the whites I still outrank white Irish, white Italian, and so forth. In terms of the racial power hierarchy, I'm as high as it goes. Anti-white racism can't hurt me because I've already won by being white. Negative stereotypes are bad, but the impact is weighted by the position of the recipient within society. Punching up and punching down are both punching, but they're not directly comparable in impact. The position of the recipient within society is determined in a much larger part by class, than by ethnicity.
Yes and no. Obviously you don't get the same legal and economic benefits today for being white as your grandparents did. You won't be guaranteed a job over a more qualified black man etc. But you cannot easily look at class without looking at your grandparents in America. To give the most documented and well researched example, home equity is a huge, huge factor in building intergenerational wealth, and black grandparents were denied home loans as a matter of bank policy. Race and class are not easily separated as factors.
|
On June 04 2018 03:47 KwarK wrote:
In other news, based on a non scientific sample of a few thousand Social Studies exams from 11 year old kids from Kentucky that I've read over the last two weeks, American children believe that all employees within a business are paid equally and that any other allocation of profits would be unfair. They're not arguing for equal division of profits between employees, they think that's the default, they don't realize that it would be a thing that anyone would need to argue for because they don't know that there is another model.
I welcome the new generation of egalitarians.
Hah. Load of good that will do us.
(I linked to a "classic youtube video" that explains people already think things are a lot more equal than they are, but also think it should be a lot more equal than the illusion in which they live -- it's not happening, and the discrepancy between poor and rich is continuously getting worse)
+ Show Spoiler +We will have to choose to fight them (rich people) or each other (poor people) in the end. Unfortunately, historically, rich people seem to choose for the poor that they must fight each other. I'm not a fan.
|
On June 04 2018 04:14 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2018 03:47 KwarK wrote:
In other news, based on a non scientific sample of a few thousand Social Studies exams from 11 year old kids from Kentucky that I've read over the last two weeks, American children believe that all employees within a business are paid equally and that any other allocation of profits would be unfair. They're not arguing for equal division of profits between employees, they think that's the default, they don't realize that it would be a thing that anyone would need to argue for because they don't know that there is another model.
I welcome the new generation of egalitarians. Hah. Load of good that will do us. (I linked to a "classic youtube video" that explains people already think things are a lot more equal than they are, but also think it should be a lot more equal than the illusion in which they live -- it's not happening, and the discrepancy between poor and rich is continuously getting worse)
Yeah that video/study was from ~2012, BEFORE we elected Trump (who has higher approval numbers than Democrats/Clinton). Trump is the personification of everything wrong with that chart and the US made him president and approves of him more than his opposition party/2016 opponent and all potential 2020 candidates other than Bernie Sanders, though not specifically reflected in that poll.
So naturally Democrats have fought endlessly against the reforms to the massively unpopular party they run, and will fight tooth and nail to prevent Bernie from being Trump's opponent.
Meanwhile Democrats will smugly make jokes about how terrible Trump is, ignoring that voters approve of him (despite a catalog of terrible) and Democrats have literally no plan to get rid of him (save a Kamala 2020 run...).
Agreed on the spoiler, but I'll be damned if they decide for me.
|
They are deciding for you, GreenHorizon. When you complain about the black lady in the Unilever commercial turning into a white lady (who then turns into a Middle Eastern lady and she into an Asian lady, a context which matters profoundly, I think), while at the same time apparently ignoring the fact that the black lady most likely does not have her natural hairstyle (it appears to be straightened). When you do that, I think you're basically just playing the game on their terms. You're letting them sell their ridiculous products in favor of a horribly flawed discussion about race. I'd argue that the black lady's hair is more of that problematic racist cultural indoctrination that's so pervasive and can be found everywhere than the fact that there's a bunch of women from different ethnicities taking off their tops and turning into one another -- something that also could be interpreted as being related to the soap they're trying to sell, but really doesn't have to be. Not only is that hairstyle a much more insidious part of the racist cultural indoctrination, but it allows Unilever to sell more straighteners at the same time. But either way I'm still more offended by the notion that they're trying to draw attention to the ad by having women take off their top (sex sells) than anything about race in that video.
|
On June 04 2018 05:37 a_flayer wrote:They are deciding for you, GreenHorizon. When you complain about the black lady in the Unilever commercial turning into a white lady (who then turns into a Middle Eastern lady and she into an Asian lady, a context which matters profoundly, I think), while at the same time apparently ignoring the fact that the black lady most likely does not have her natural hairstyle ( it appears to be straightened). When you do that, I think you're basically just playing the game on their terms. You're letting them sell their ridiculous products in favor of a horribly flawed discussion about race. I'd argue that the black lady's hair is more of that problematic racist cultural indoctrination that's so pervasive and can be found everywhere than the fact that there's a bunch of women from different ethnicities taking off their tops and turning into one another -- something that also could be interpreted as being related to the soap they're trying to sell. Not only is that hairstyle a much more insidious part of the racist cultural indoctrination, but it allows Unilever to sell more straighteners at the same time. But either way I'm still more offended by the notion that they're trying to draw attention to the ad by having women take off their top (sex sells) than anything about race in that video.
Nothing wrong with finding all of that problematic (which I do). I wasn't complaining about it though, other than that it was being used as to pettifog the uncomfortable discussion around what white people should be doing in the US to stop the stories they themselves categorize as horrific and my position that it's (what they are doing currently) not enough and demonstrative of a collective moral failing.
Though I did explain the most basic part of why it was racially insensitive.
|
Canada11279 Posts
On June 04 2018 04:14 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2018 03:47 KwarK wrote:
In other news, based on a non scientific sample of a few thousand Social Studies exams from 11 year old kids from Kentucky that I've read over the last two weeks, American children believe that all employees within a business are paid equally and that any other allocation of profits would be unfair. They're not arguing for equal division of profits between employees, they think that's the default, they don't realize that it would be a thing that anyone would need to argue for because they don't know that there is another model.
I welcome the new generation of egalitarians. Hah. Load of good that will do us. (I linked to a "classic youtube video" that explains people already think things are a lot more equal than they are, but also think it should be a lot more equal than the illusion in which they live -- it's not happening, and the discrepancy between poor and rich is continuously getting worse) + Show Spoiler +We will have to choose to fight them (rich people) or each other (poor people) in the end. Unfortunately, historically, rich people seem to choose for the poor that they must fight each other. I'm not a fan.
The thing is, the discrepancy between the rich and the poor doesn't matter so much as whether the standard of living has increased as a whole. Discrepancy is a relative measure, but whether the richest fellow is richer than me by a million dollars, a billion dollars, or a trillion dollars, it has no material change on how well I am doing. And in absolute terms, the standard of living has grown in leaps in bounds when comparing my generation to my grandparents' generation and leaps and bounds again from their childhood to fifty and a hundred years ago. What it means to be the working poor in the US or Canada now is very different from the past.
|
What a fucking asshole Santorum is. I still don't get how this myth of "OMG Obama fomented racism and hate and was soooo divisive" still persists. Santorum says Obama was against the police in a lot of the instances. No fucking shit. The police were wrong and brutal in most of them. Why is this surprising? Even saying that strikes me as borderline racism. Like.... the cops are always right and the brown people they kill are always wrong. Seems legit. And as I've said before, I'm the son of a cop for Christ's sake. I know what good cops do, and these fuckwits do. Not. Qualify.
If you're so cowardly that you kill someone for pulling up their pants when you already have a gun drawn on them, or while they're grabbing a phone, you shouldn't be a cop. Jesus this kind of shit makes me angry.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/rick-santorum-says-barack-obama-exacerbated-racism-u-s-191634118.html
“If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”
-LBJ
|
|
|
On June 04 2018 06:01 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2018 04:14 a_flayer wrote:On June 04 2018 03:47 KwarK wrote:
In other news, based on a non scientific sample of a few thousand Social Studies exams from 11 year old kids from Kentucky that I've read over the last two weeks, American children believe that all employees within a business are paid equally and that any other allocation of profits would be unfair. They're not arguing for equal division of profits between employees, they think that's the default, they don't realize that it would be a thing that anyone would need to argue for because they don't know that there is another model.
I welcome the new generation of egalitarians. Hah. Load of good that will do us. (I linked to a "classic youtube video" that explains people already think things are a lot more equal than they are, but also think it should be a lot more equal than the illusion in which they live -- it's not happening, and the discrepancy between poor and rich is continuously getting worse) + Show Spoiler +We will have to choose to fight them (rich people) or each other (poor people) in the end. Unfortunately, historically, rich people seem to choose for the poor that they must fight each other. I'm not a fan. The thing is, the discrepancy between the rich and the poor doesn't matter so much as whether the standard of living has increased as a whole. Discrepancy is a relative measure, but whether the richest fellow is richer than me by a million dollars, a billion dollars, or a trillion dollars, it has no material change on how well I am doing. And in absolute terms, the standard of living has grown in leaps in bounds when comparing my generation to my grandparents' generation and leaps and bounds again from their childhood to fifty and a hundred years ago. What it means to be the working poor in the US or Canada now is very different from the past.
Except the discrepancy is objectively lowering the quality of life when it's so extreme and we live on a planet with limited resources. Which is why most people were comfortable with people holding 10-100 times more at the top, but the current situation (and trend) in the US points toward an unsustainable extraction of wealth from the bottom to the tip top.
Most importantly in that video it shows how through the various distributions after "socialism" it gets worse for everyone but the top 10-20% or so.
The idea that someone else having trillions doesn't make things worse for me is nice as a slogan but doesn't stand up in the real world.
|
United States41989 Posts
On June 04 2018 06:01 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2018 04:14 a_flayer wrote:On June 04 2018 03:47 KwarK wrote:
In other news, based on a non scientific sample of a few thousand Social Studies exams from 11 year old kids from Kentucky that I've read over the last two weeks, American children believe that all employees within a business are paid equally and that any other allocation of profits would be unfair. They're not arguing for equal division of profits between employees, they think that's the default, they don't realize that it would be a thing that anyone would need to argue for because they don't know that there is another model.
I welcome the new generation of egalitarians. Hah. Load of good that will do us. (I linked to a "classic youtube video" that explains people already think things are a lot more equal than they are, but also think it should be a lot more equal than the illusion in which they live -- it's not happening, and the discrepancy between poor and rich is continuously getting worse) + Show Spoiler +We will have to choose to fight them (rich people) or each other (poor people) in the end. Unfortunately, historically, rich people seem to choose for the poor that they must fight each other. I'm not a fan. The thing is, the discrepancy between the rich and the poor doesn't matter so much as whether the standard of living has increased as a whole. Discrepancy is a relative measure, but whether the richest fellow is richer than me by a million dollars, a billion dollars, or a trillion dollars, it has no material change on how well I am doing. And in absolute terms, the standard of living has grown in leaps in bounds when comparing my generation to my grandparents' generation and leaps and bounds again from their childhood to fifty and a hundred years ago. What it means to be the working poor in the US or Canada now is very different from the past.
And yet there are still so many people who cannot make ends meet. So many homeless people in my city alone, for example.
|
On June 04 2018 06:09 Ayaz2810 wrote:What a fucking asshole Santorum is. I still don't get how this myth of "OMG Obama fomented racism and hate and was soooo divisive" still persists. Santorum says Obama was against the police in a lot of the instances. No fucking shit. The police were wrong and brutal in most of them. Why is this surprising? Even saying that strikes me as borderline racism. Like.... the cops are always right and the brown people they kill are always wrong. Seems legit. And as I've said before, I'm the son of a cop for Christ's sake. I know what good cops do, and these fuckwits do. Not. Qualify. If you're so cowardly that you kill someone for pulling up their pants when you already have a gun drawn on them, or while they're grabbing a phone, you shouldn't be a cop. Jesus this kind of shit makes me angry. https://www.yahoo.com/news/rick-santorum-says-barack-obama-exacerbated-racism-u-s-191634118.html“If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.” -LBJ
i'm unclear whether you actually want an answer to the psychological mechanisms that let myths like that stick around [which I could provide, partially at least] or if you just wanted to vent. if you want more targets: Gohmert is a real piece of work in the stuff he says (least what I've seen of him on the House floor).
|
United States41989 Posts
The idea that everything was fine until the uppity negro started complaining and incited all his easily swayed brothers is not new, nor even especially controversial in many circles. Santorum is simply speaking to his base. If he sounds racist it's because he is, and so are the people who voted for him.
|
On June 04 2018 06:38 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2018 06:09 Ayaz2810 wrote:What a fucking asshole Santorum is. I still don't get how this myth of "OMG Obama fomented racism and hate and was soooo divisive" still persists. Santorum says Obama was against the police in a lot of the instances. No fucking shit. The police were wrong and brutal in most of them. Why is this surprising? Even saying that strikes me as borderline racism. Like.... the cops are always right and the brown people they kill are always wrong. Seems legit. And as I've said before, I'm the son of a cop for Christ's sake. I know what good cops do, and these fuckwits do. Not. Qualify. If you're so cowardly that you kill someone for pulling up their pants when you already have a gun drawn on them, or while they're grabbing a phone, you shouldn't be a cop. Jesus this kind of shit makes me angry. https://www.yahoo.com/news/rick-santorum-says-barack-obama-exacerbated-racism-u-s-191634118.html“If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.” -LBJ i'm unclear whether you actually want an answer to the psychological mechanisms that let myths like that stick around [which I could provide, partially at least] or if you just wanted to vent. if you want more targets: Gohmert is a real piece of work in the stuff he says (least what I've seen of him on the House floor).
It's more just venting than anything. I completely understand why "they" do it. It's just something that is unconscionable to me. Partially because it's wrong, and partially because it causes uninformed morons to parrot the same lines. I had (key word: had) friends who were hardcore Trump supporters to the point of sharing fake news (I hate that term) and were fanatical in their hatred of Obama and liberals. If I had a nickel for every time I read or heard "Obama was racially divisive" or "liberalism is a mental disorder"...
I'll read up on Gohmert so I can get more angry though lol.
|
Norway28558 Posts
On June 04 2018 06:01 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2018 04:14 a_flayer wrote:On June 04 2018 03:47 KwarK wrote:
In other news, based on a non scientific sample of a few thousand Social Studies exams from 11 year old kids from Kentucky that I've read over the last two weeks, American children believe that all employees within a business are paid equally and that any other allocation of profits would be unfair. They're not arguing for equal division of profits between employees, they think that's the default, they don't realize that it would be a thing that anyone would need to argue for because they don't know that there is another model.
I welcome the new generation of egalitarians. Hah. Load of good that will do us. (I linked to a "classic youtube video" that explains people already think things are a lot more equal than they are, but also think it should be a lot more equal than the illusion in which they live -- it's not happening, and the discrepancy between poor and rich is continuously getting worse) + Show Spoiler +We will have to choose to fight them (rich people) or each other (poor people) in the end. Unfortunately, historically, rich people seem to choose for the poor that they must fight each other. I'm not a fan. The thing is, the discrepancy between the rich and the poor doesn't matter so much as whether the standard of living has increased as a whole. Discrepancy is a relative measure, but whether the richest fellow is richer than me by a million dollars, a billion dollars, or a trillion dollars, it has no material change on how well I am doing. And in absolute terms, the standard of living has grown in leaps in bounds when comparing my generation to my grandparents' generation and leaps and bounds again from their childhood to fifty and a hundred years ago. What it means to be the working poor in the US or Canada now is very different from the past.
As long as you are in the upper 75-50-25%(I didn't fact check these numbers) depending on where in the west you live, yeah, doesn't really matter how rich the superrich get because you are comfortable either way. But for the people below that group, they could get considerably better 'returns' for their money than the billio-trillionaire could get from his. From my perspective, even if you factor in some type of entropy where part of the money disappears in the redistribution process, if someone has 1 billion then there's more utility of 2 billion spread between 1 million poorer people than there is from him having another 4 billion. The bottom 20% of households in the US make about $21.7k per year, for reference. source
Like, just to be clear, I'm not saying we should just take the money and redistribute it. The following is more an example to illustrate how much money we are talking about.
it seems like the average income of top 400 income earners in 2015 was $337 million
If you take half of that total sum, you get ~$70 billion. Those people would still be seeing average yearly incomes of $168.5 million. You'd have the ability to distribute $1k to 70 million people - or $1k to each of the 20% poorest americans, per year. Single mom (it's 4 times more common than single dad!) of 2 living on $20k could get $23k. Literally 70 million people could have a felt improvement from taking half the income of 400 people, where I personally have a hard time seeing how any of those 400 would even really 'feel' it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
