Finally A Politician That Gets Its...

[paladin]

I have to say, I was quite impressed by this aticle in the Wall Street Journal by James Webb, a Virginia Senator (D). Its been awhile since I've actually heard an elected politician on the left side say affirmative action needs to be abolished, it made me quite happy.


Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege
America still owes a debt to its black citizens, but government programs to help all 'people of color' are unfair. They should end.

The NAACP believes the tea party is racist. The tea party believes the NAACP is racist. And Pat Buchanan got into trouble recently by pointing out that if Elena Kagan is confirmed to the Supreme Court, there will not be a single Protestant Justice, although Protestants make up half the U.S. population and dominated the court for generations.

Forty years ago, as the United States experienced the civil rights movement, the supposed monolith of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant dominance served as the whipping post for almost every debate about power and status in America. After a full generation of such debate, WASP elites have fallen by the wayside and a plethora of government-enforced diversity policies have marginalized many white workers. The time has come to cease the false arguments and allow every American the benefit of a fair chance at the future...


Article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703724104575379630952309408.html)

[rossmum]

I've been telling people for the longest time that until every benefit is either axed or given to everyone, we are nowhere near equality. It's like governments are so desperate to try and make up for past misdeeds that they'll gladly throw money and opportunities at some groups and not others, which is just as wrong as if they reversed the situation.

You could argue the same thing about feminism (which I often do): who nearly always wins custody cases? Who is taken more seriously in cases of domestic violence or sexual harassment or abuse? I've seen women (albeit really nasty pieces of work, so by no means representative of women as a whole) ruin a guy's entire life by making a rape accusation just to cover their own arses after they stupidly got drunk, pulled someone they don't even know or like, and then woke up in the morning and freaked out. On the other hand, if a woman somehow forced a guy into it, he'd get laughed at.

[Eleven]

I've been telling people for the longest time that until every benefit is either axed or given to everyone, we are nowhere near equality. It's like governments are so desperate to try and make up for past misdeeds that they'll gladly throw money and opportunities at some groups and not others, which is just as wrong as if they reversed the situation.

By everyone, do you mean that every single person deserves the same benefits regardless of their current situation? Or are you implying that people of all racial/cultural groups deserve the same benefits (as illustrated by the article)? I agree with the latter, but I most certainly do not agree with the former.


You could argue the same thing about feminism (which I often do): who nearly always wins custody cases? Who is taken more seriously in cases of domestic violence or sexual harassment or abuse? I've seen women (albeit really nasty pieces of work, so by no means representative of women as a whole) ruin a guy's entire life by making a rape accusation just to cover their own arses after they stupidly got drunk, pulled someone they don't even know or like, and then woke up in the morning and freaked out. On the other hand, if a woman somehow forced a guy into it, he'd get laughed at.

A little off-topic, but you seem to have a warped perception of feminism. Feminism isn't about giving women more rights than men, it's about achieving equal rights. Any 'feminist' who believes that women should be given greater standing in the legal cases you mentioned isn't a feminist, but a sexist. I think people misinterpret the term too often, in all honesty.

[Bodzilla]

your talking to ross and yes he understands that.

While i agree that until the system is exactly the same across the board for well-fare and opportunity's we'll never have equality, i also know that in order to get there first the other guys need a bit of a leg up to get going.
while this isn't true for everyone there are still alot of racist, homophobic, sexist retards out there and until they can get going in their careers and get total acceptance in life, we wont ever have a working system.

we'll slide backwards again.
just the way i see it.

[CrAsHOvErRide]

"Hate Crime" - the worst thing ever happened to law systems. Abolish it for more equality. My 2 cents.

[rossmum]

By everyone, do you mean that every single person deserves the same benefits regardless of their current situation? Or are you implying that people of all racial/cultural groups deserve the same benefits (as illustrated by the article)? I agree with the latter, but I most certainly do not agree with the former.
LATTER SORRY I AM DUMB


A little off-topic, but you seem to have a warped perception of feminism. Feminism isn't about giving women more rights than men, it's about achieving equal rights. Any 'feminist' who believes that women should be given greater standing in the legal cases you mentioned isn't a feminist, but a sexist. I think people misinterpret the term too often, in all honesty.
You ever heard Germaine Greer speak about basically anything at all? While feminism in itself isn't that extreme, most of its strongest proponents well and truly are.

[n00b1n8R]

A little off-topic, but you seem to have a warped perception of feminism. Feminism isn't about giving women more rights than men, it's about achieving equal rights. Any 'feminist' who believes that women should be given greater standing in the legal cases you mentioned isn't a feminist, but a sexist. I think people misinterpret the term too often, in all honesty.
While that's true in the literal sense and sounds perfectly fine to you or I, try explaining it to some of the more self-important "femenists". Hitting a woman should be a perfectly acceptable retaliation for a woman hitting you IMO.


Former.
So you're saying that those born into impoverished or lower-earning situations should have to work harder to achieve the same ends and those born with a silver spoon in their mouth? That's what removing benefits for those groups would achieve. I'm all for the later but. Or am I misunderstanding what you're meaning?

[=sw=warlord]

So you're saying that those born into impoverished or lower-earning situations should have to work harder to achieve the same ends and those born with a silver spoon in their mouth? That's what removing benefits for those groups would achieve. I'm all for the later but. Or am I misunderstanding what you're meaning? Favouritism breeds corruption and corruption breeds resentment.

[Bodzilla]

of course it does but still take into account that when we were the ones that were better off, there was still this rift between us.
It's not only about the welfare and benefits, a hell of alot comes down to just plain human stupidity.

[DarkHalo003]

I hope people will realize that skin color or culture should not make a lick of difference in any decision at such a high level. Or hell, anywhere actually. That goes both ways too, so people who have different attributes don't get MORE benefits neither. I don't like pointing fingers, but those so called "oppressed" cultures are riding the bandwagon to these benefits. I walked into the mall one time and apparently gave an African-American lady a bad look (which i didn't) and she turns to her boyfriend and says "White kid looked like he never seen a damn ni**er before." I mean, seriously, if cultures like these are so sensitive to other people calling them names like this, why do they degrade themselves further with these words so they think they're any different from anybody else? (This statement is sent towards those who act like this. If you are offended because you are of the same culture/race, I'm sorry, but it was an example I'm using for emphasis and to get my point across.) Other than for intellectual use, anyone who acknowledges people by race/type (type like Protestant) automatically loses 1/4 of my respect towards them. We're human beings, not races. Seriously, I was hoping by now people would realize that, but I guess half of the crap in the 60s/70s/80s didn't establish that enough (although it clearly made it better).

tl;dr version:

WE'RE ALL FREAKING HUMAN. Why should it matter what culture or race we are? People who use their race or culture to gain an advantage or benefit need to seriously get a reality check.

[rossmum]

So you're saying that those born into impoverished or lower-earning situations should have to work harder to achieve the same ends and those born with a silver spoon in their mouth? That's what removing benefits for those groups would achieve. I'm all for the later but. Or am I misunderstanding what you're meaning?
Fuck, I'm dumb. I meant latter. This is what comes of posting between rounds of games.


tl;dr version:

WE'RE ALL FREAKING HUMAN. Why should it matter what culture or race we are? People who use their race or culture to gain an advantage or benefit need to seriously get a reality check.
That's about as much as ever needs to be said on the 'race' topic. Nobody gives a fuck if you're white, brown, or purple with green stripes, so stop lording it over everyone else.

[sleepy1212]

The NAACP is should be in hot hot water right now, especially after that stunt they pulled with the DOJ in the Black Panther case. They've really become nothing more than another NGO attempting redistribution. Like all the other social organizations they've been hijacked for other purposes.

Plus, last I heard that $100,000 reward for proof the Tea Party is racist is still up for grabs.

[rossmum]

how about proof they're dumb

[paladin]

Plus, last I heard that $100,000 reward for proof the Tea Party is racist is still up for grabs.

Andrew Breitbart still hasn't written a check.

[Ifafudafi]

ugh I promised myself I'd stay away from this section but look at me

It's good to keep in mind that there are two seperate ideals that factor in to all of this: equality and equal opportunity. Equality is communism; everybody gets paid the same, rationed the same, etc., etc. Whether that's good or not is a completely different discussion. Equal opportunity is just a leveling of the playfield; in that ideal, every person can achieve the same goals with the same amount of dedication and hard work, regardless of who they are. The two terms often get interchanged and occasionally merged, and it's just bleh.

So-called "reverse racism" is certainly a huge problem both on a legal and cultural scale, but I think anything I can say has already been said; people are people, and they don't deserve any less or any more respect just because of a color.

Treating different-colored people nicely only proves we're halfway passed the whole racism thing. Being able to openly acknowledge when they're also acting like idiots is the other half.

[Dwood]

Reverse Racism is Racism. Black persons can be racist too.

[Cojafoji]

So you're saying that those born into impoverished or lower-earning situations should have to work harder to achieve the same ends and those born with a silver spoon in their mouth? That's what removing benefits for those groups would achieve. I'm all for the later but. Or am I misunderstanding what you're meaning?
The problem with incentivized poverty is that it's only geared towards minorities in the US.

Call me a racist, call me an asshole, but it's true. If you're black, and you apply for federal aid along with a white friend who is in the same economic situation as you, you're more likely to receive aid.

That's all I really wanted to throw in. It's a pet peeve of mine.

[rossmum]

I think that's true everywhere, to be honest.

[sleepy1212]

The problem with incentivized poverty...

the problem with "incentivized poverty" is that it's "incentivized". Poverty should never be desirable, yet...for many people it is and i blame the entitlement system.

[Bodzilla]

the problem with "incentivized poverty" is that it's "incentivized". Poverty should never be desirable, yet...for many people it is and i blame the entitlement system.
what the fuck is this.

you have got to be kidding me.

[rossmum]

You've evidently never been to Woy Woy, Bod.

While it's a bit silly to make out like everyone does it, I know of several people who deliberately have no job and no means of supporting themselves just to dole bludge.

[paladin]

Hes right. Idk what world you live in Bod,

[Bodzilla]

You've evidently never been to Woy Woy, Bod.

While it's a bit silly to make out like everyone does it, I know of several people who deliberately have no job and no means of supporting themselves just to dole bludge.
that is different to poverty mate.

[sleepy1212]

that is different to poverty mate.

if it weren't for the entitlements it wouldn't be different at all.

I live in the poorest county of one of the poorest states in the US. I know fucktons of people who refuse to work because they can get welfare. The ones that do work only do so long enough to extend their benefits. People here literally think getting your foot run over at work is a recipe for success - it seems like everyone around here is on disability. Meanwhile, there are jobs here and good ones if your willing to do a little hard work...they go unfilled.

[Cojafoji]

we have wage subsidies, food stamps, college loans. all for the poor.

none for the lower middle class.

welcome to incentiveville.

[sleepy1212]

we have wage subsidies, food stamps, college loans. all for the poor.

none for the lower middle class.

welcome to incentiveville.

that's right, you live in PA too.

don't forget that a single/no kids person's maximum monthly income cannot exceed $200 (per household which means if you have roommates you are fucked) in order to claim benefits while benefits are only slightly more than that. the only work incentive is to not report your earnings which is tax fraud. So basically what they're doing is giving you almost what you need to survive and punishing you if you try to offset the difference on your own...in effect it is better to immerse yourself completely into the system and also have a bunch of kids than it is to try and become self sufficient.

[Bodzilla]

so what do you do, do you cut off the wellfare and kick the familys onto the streets?
i'm sure that wont have any negative effect on crime....

[paladin]

You do exactly that.

[Bodzilla]

cool strategy mate, lets create a system of severely deprived and disadvantaged people that cycles for generations, most of it not by choice.

Got mine, Fuck you.

[rossmum]

nooooooo how about we more carefully assess who gets what.

my mate justin's idiot brother is going out with a bogan chick whose entire family lives off welfare for having kids. literally. she is now pregnant. what a fucking surprise. we need to kick them out and force them to do shit, while directing the now-surplus funding towards people who are actually living on the streets (or week-to-week) because of some legitimate reason.

wanting shit for free because you're filling the world with your fucking disgusting slob progeny should absolutely not be rewarded.

[Bodzilla]

I Agree.

[sleepy1212]

nooooooo how about we more carefully assess who gets what.

we need to kick them out and force them to do shit, while directing the now-surplus funding towards people who are actually living on the streets (or week-to-week) because of some legitimate reason.

:realsmug: welcome to conservatism ross lol


wanting shit for free because you're filling the world with your fucking disgusting slob progeny should absolutely not be rewarded.

it's a big problem. while legitimately poor families definitely do need more assistance per child - particularly medical - it lends itself to abuse. Once the enrollee has a child the benefits skyrocket but they are not specifically directed at the child. I think one big improvement here, and in other areas as well, is to stop giving people money. Instead, provide services and food stamps, etc...second is accountability. Right now what we have is the opposite of that. It's the unintended consequence of creating a welfare state.

[rossmum]

that's not conservatism, it's person with a brainitism

i'm still socialist as fuck, i just think that the benefits designed for poor people should only go to people who are legimately poor

[Dwood]

that's not conservatism, it's person with a brainitism

i'm still socialist as fuck, i just think that the benefits designed for poor people should only go to people who are legimately poor

That's not socialist enough, sorry. :P

[paladin]

cool strategy mate, lets create a system of severely deprived and disadvantaged people that cycles for generations, most of it not by choice.

Got mine, Fuck you.

Thats the current system

[rossmum]

got mine, fuck you is one of the founding tenets of the united states so far as any outside observer can tell

why can't we all be a big gay socialist paradise like scandanavian countries uuuu~

[sleepy1212]

why can't we all be a big gay socialist paradise like scandanavian countries uuuu~

not enough fjords to go around.. fucking greedy scandinavians. :eng101:

actually, i'm not convinced that kind of setup will work as well for a such a huge country like the US in the first place. Our Gov already turns everything into a federal bureaucratic mess that can't do anything right.

[rossmum]

it's not so much the country's huge as it's an inefficient fuckfight. australia is fucking tiny (~21m people) yet we have all manners of fucking problems because everything is so dumbly organised and there is a lot of political backstabbing

e/ that and about half your population are retards who think it's still 1950 and communism is evil (because socialism is only one step away from communism evil!)

[DarkHalo003]

Well, one of the biggest issues is whether or not the actual working class wants to use their taxes to help the poor. There are many organizations that people utilize to accomplish this task far better than a government ever could and I think the biggest beef with creating a socialist-like treatment of the poor is that it's more or less unnecessary (because other people do it far better). Now I don't want to keep the eye on the tax payers completely, so I'm going to switch to another point that also compliments the former: these organizations can be accessed by any poor person who needs the aid. So now you might say it's the poors' fault. Not exactly (considering their own histories), but there are a ton of ways one can better improve their status by accessing these organizations.

[rossmum]

but other people don't do it better, at all

look at poor people in the us vs poor people in scandanavia and tell me the ones in the non-socialist country are better off.

[sleepy1212]

look at poor people in the us vs poor people in Cuba

:realsmug:

[paladin]

At least Haiti will have Wyclef :highfive:

[rossmum]

:realsmug:
i really hope you were being ironic because if you actually meant that holy fuck way to understand the difference between socialism and a communist dictatorship

[CrAsHOvErRide]

not to mention that Cuba has no external support what so ever

[paladin]

Sure they do, its Cubans to Miami...

[sleepy1212]

i really hope you were being ironic because if you actually meant that holy fuck way to understand the difference between socialism and a communist dictatorship

no ross, just pointing out your fallacious comparison of capitalism [US] vs socialism [all of Scandinavia]. You can't compare a poor version of Capitalism with one of the best examples of Socialism, especially considering there are several Socialist countries that have fared far far worse than the US - particularly in Latin America- and emerging Capitalist economies (like Estonia) that may, in the future, upset your comparison. But yes, Cuba is 'officially' considered communist a dictatorship even though Castro declared it Socialist in the 60's.

[rossmum]

there are a lot of banana republics that failed badly you mean :allears:

obviously not all socialist countries are great but the ones that do it right are. the us does capitalism and does it horribly, but capitalism is a horrible system anyway ('fuck you, got mine' turned into a way of running a country).

[sleepy1212]

obviously not all socialist countries are great but the ones that do it right are. the us does capitalism and does it horribly, but capitalism is a horrible system anyway ('fuck you, got mine' turned into a way of running a country).

Both systems fail when a centralized power structure becomes entrenched and when human nature shows it's bad side.

Capitalism in the US is failing because of the Corporate-Federal centralization of resources, wealth, and power. In order for it to work properly pure Capitalism requires limited government and real democratic representation. Human nature guarantees there will always be someone willing to exploit the system to monopolize it. In Capitalism these people take the form of CEO's and politicians. Warnings about "big-government" have existed since the founding of the US. You cannot maintain a Capitalist economy when you have Socialist mandate coming from government.

Socialism requires eventual dissolution of a ruling class and eventual pure democracy on varying scales. This will never happen. For the same reason US Capitalism struggles - centralized resources, wealth, and power. The very same human nature ensures there will be someone who will refuse to relinquish power. In Socialism these people take the form of politicians and bureaucrats. You've already seen them at work. Even Marx warned about the aristocracy's version of Socialism. It's a ploy used to dominate both the middle class and the proletariat by hijacking the movement. you cannot have a socialist government unless the 'revolution' is started by the working man. All 1st world Socialist countries today became Socialist via the existing ruling class.