White Privilege

[Vepres]

I don't dispute that. I dispute that somehow that's not luck, that you are who you are.

It's not luck, because luck implies something else was possible, which it is not.

[Franzl]

I don't dispute that. I dispute that somehow that's not luck, that you are who you are.

It's not luck, because luck implies something else was possible, which it is not.

What's your point though...that you were destined to be White and wealthy? I don't see what argument You're trying to make.

[Vepres]

I don't dispute that. I dispute that somehow that's not luck, that you are who you are.

It's not luck, because luck implies something else was possible, which it is not.

What's your point though...that you were destined to be White and wealthy? I don't see what argument You're trying to make.

First, I'm not wealthy.

The argument is that because me being born white and middle-class had 100% chance of occurring, there is no luck.

"You're lucky that gravity exists" is a more blatant example fallacy that Earth is committing.

[Vepres]

Honestly, I have no idea what I'm arguing

[Franzl]

But regardless of it technically not being luck by that definition....isn't it practically luck for you insofar as you didn't have any control over it happening? In other words...you have the good fortune to not be someone born into a poor family...right?

And just to be clear, I'm mainly on your side in the responsibility for success debate

[Vepres]

But regardless of it technically not being luck by that definition....isn't it practically luck for you insofar as you didn't have any control over it happening? In other words...you have the good fortune to not be someone born into a poor family...right?

And just to be clear, I'm mainly on your side in the responsibility for success debate

I think we're getting too philosophical

[Vepres]

Sure there are outside forces, but you act like we're all at the mercy of external forces. Bullsh**t! People always have choices, different ones, but they do. Ones choices shape their destiny, how one reacts to outside forces shapes their destiny, not some chance.

They're not mutually exclusive. We are at the mercy of outside forces, and we always have choices, but it doesn't mean it will amount to jack sh**t. We're at the mercy of our employer, who in these times, could easily lay anyone of us off. We're at the mercy of our health, and the health of people we depend on. Please stop with this 'destiny' bit, it's lame.

Of course it will amount to something. You could make the choice to voluntarily work extra hours to impress your employer. Let's say they lay you off anyway, you have the choice to become depressed or the choice to not to stop searching for a job until you find one. Let's say you can't find a job, you have the choice to resign to becoming homeless, or you can choose to find help and not stop until you find it.

[Ban my account ffs!]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I'm sorry if an upper middle-class latte liberal was preaching to you about "those poor working class folk."

But please don't assume that my ideology is borne out of some contempt for the rich and bleeding heart for the poor which is then reinforced by my being upper middle class and feeling superior.

No, really, my ideology is borne out of experience.  There is something about seeing your own mother, of all people, the person you are probably closer to than anybody else in the entire world, crying uncontrollably as bleach water is blown into a football sized gaping, infected wound in her belly.

Or nearly losing her more times than you can count on one hand...

Or perhaps it was having to change her diaper (she would absolutely f**king mortified if she knew I was mentioning this.. the humiliation would be complete) because she has a terrible kidney infection and C Diff to boot that made me pity the poor in our society.

But I will say this:  I understand your ideology is perfectly logical, and that you probably have had many life events that have led you to such a logical ideology.

But at this point, were I to base my political ideology on logic instead of my own experiences... I would be a sociopath and absolutely f**king insane.

So I apologize if I come off as acting "superior".  I don't know what your life experiences are.  But I find it generally safe to assume that most people haven't had to deal with the crap I've dealt with...

And most people have no idea what I've dealt with and instead like to pretend I'm just a bleeding heart latte white limousine LIBRUL because I'm just a spoiled brat who thinks he's better than everyone else and feels bad for people I obviously don't understand (because.. you know.. they WANT to be homeless or poor or unemployed or sick without insurance or whatever it is they are)

[Vepres]

The part about latte liberals was more directed at Xahar, not you

[Ban my account ffs!]

The part about latte liberals was more directed at Xahar, not you

Ok.  I kind of figured it wasn't directed at me personally.. but maybe some imaginary latte sipping scare crow... or Xahar.. whichever

But I have pointed out rather strongly that I am both a logical and emotional being and I get offended when people talk like "well, if your mom just could pick herself up by the bootstraps she'd be fine."

Umm.. we're working on standing up without falling first. 

I also can't stand the types that are like 'Everybody has choices'... my mom has a choice between depends or the offbrand.  And Joe Conservative is there to make sure that the 0.00008 cents that he paid into those diapers is the cheap brand cuz he don't wanna be payin' fer no f**kin luxury diapers for the crip!

Really, the people who have sacrificed the most in this situation are

1.  My mother
2.  The people around her who have given up their own productivity to take care of her without being paid a dime for it.

And that's where luck comes in.  And where it is a big deal.  My mom was just really really really unlucky.  She didn't ask or work or not work for any of this.  It happens.  sh**t happens.  Life happens.

And every single able bodied person should be contributing a portion to pay for those who can't contribute.

And if you don't like that (especially Derek), well:

Life ain't fair.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I also play the "My mother" card here because I think it adds something a little personal to it.

It's amazing how inhumane people can be when they have no personal stake whatsoever in something. 

This way we can sort the people out who have, say, conservative ideals that sound callous and uncaring when really they aren't... and those that are frankly just inhumane pieces of sh**t.

[Mint]

Except he never said that about your mom, as inane as I find this thread (for equally personal reasons).

[Mint]

Dude, I've said time an time again, those who are physically incapable of something shouldn't be expected to work. Everybody else, yes.

I know I've asked this before but again - how? Full employment is extremely difficult to achieve and even ignoring all the jobs that have gone overseas & the financial crisis the general trend since the 1970s has been to deliberately keep unemployment at an 'acceptable' level. What do we do for the people who can't reliably find work? Shovel jobs (very expensive and inefficient potentially)? Give businesses incentives to take them (which itself presents a lot of problems)? Conscript them? You can't just say 'they should work' then not explain how you think we should go about ensuring they do, unless you just don't care.

[Vepres]

With that out of the way...

Dude, I've said time an time again, those who are physically incapable of something shouldn't be expected to work. Everybody else, yes.

I know I've asked this before but again - how? Full employment is extremely difficult to achieve and even ignoring all the jobs that have gone overseas & the financial crisis the general trend since the 1970s has been to deliberately keep unemployment at an 'acceptable' level. What do we do for the people who can't reliably find work? Shovel jobs (very expensive and inefficient potentially)? Give businesses incentives to take them (which itself presents a lot of problems)? Conscript them? You can't just say 'they should work' then not explain how you think we should go about ensuring they do, unless you just don't care.

I believe in infrastructure investment, but aside from that, there are always people unemployed, and while I think they should get unemployment insurance to a point, 99 weeks (like this current congress tried to do) is pushing the limit (though this recession is different, so I don't really think it's bad). However, while I think less government is usually good, decreasing such insurance is silly when you have a three 800-pound gorillas in the room: social security, Medicare and Medicaid, and defense spending. Taking care of Snowguy's mother and the long term unemployed who are looking for jobs is a so small when put in perspective. I'm not SPC

I never denied that luck and circumstance don't exist, Snowguy, I simply believe that one should always try to make the best of what's doled out to them because they have little choice. Now, I think those choices largely shape the quality of one's life outside of just extraordinarily bad luck (like your mother).

Everybody, literally everybody, has struggles and suffers, but how one chooses to react and deal with those realities is what defines one and separates the sibling who rose from poverty from the one that didn't.

I didn't mean to come off as cold and harsh. I'm sorry I offended you

[Mint]

I believe in infrastructure investment, but aside from that, there are always people unemployed, and while I think they should get unemployment insurance to a point, 99 weeks (like this current congress tried to do) is pushing the limit (though this recession is different, so I don't really think it's bad). However, while I think less government is usually good, decreasing such insurance is silly when you have a three 800-pound gorillas in the room: social security, Medicare and Medicaid, and defense spending. Taking care of Snowguy's mother and the long term unemployed who are looking for jobs is a so small when put in perspective. I'm not SPC

What about in the long term though? It's generally agreed by a lot of people that many of the 8.2 million jobs we lost (according to government figures, in reality it's much worse for several reasons) won't come back.  What do we do for those people? Even menial labor is highly competitive at this point. Obviously I am generally very conservative but why should we just say 'tough luck' again when this has been a recurring, worsening problem for well over a decade by now? It just seems like a cop out at best to say 'that's how it's always been' if not indifferent.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I believe in infrastructure investment, but aside from that, there are always people unemployed, and while I think they should get unemployment insurance to a point, 99 weeks (like this current congress tried to do) is pushing the limit (though this recession is different, so I don't really think it's bad). However, while I think less government is usually good, decreasing such insurance is silly when you have a three 800-pound gorillas in the room: social security, Medicare and Medicaid, and defense spending. Taking care of Snowguy's mother and the long term unemployed who are looking for jobs is a so small when put in perspective. I'm not SPC

What about in the long term though? It's generally agreed by a lot of people that many of the 8.2 million jobs we lost (according to government figures, in reality it's much worse for several reasons) won't come back.  What do we do for those people? Even menial labor is highly competitive at this point. Obviously I am generally very conservative but why should we just say 'tough luck' again when this has been a recurring, worsening problem for well over a decade by now? It just seems like a cop out at best to say 'that's how it's always been' if not indifferent.

It may come down to something like creating a tax surcharge on imports that raise roughly the amount of income paid out to the workers whose jobs were outsourced and give all proceeds to small businesses that hire American workers.  If big, existing companies can't hire Americans and stay profitable, then we'll subsidize their competitors.

The idea is jobs... income.. growth... not some idealistic libertarian free market economy where we screw ourselves for the benefit of being pure in our principles.

I know.. PROTECTIONISM PROTECTIONISM... but unless you just support a livable dole for these people, free trade isn't going to solve this constant loss of jobs.

It's time the government stopped saying "you'd better stop this or I'll warn you again!" and said "times up now.  Pay up"

[J. J.]

Here is one person that did receive white privilege:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_De_Wolf

De Wolf profited, and became the second richest man in America, from the slave trade.  It helped him establish a political career, ending as a US Senator. 

I know some of De Wolf's descendants.  Do you know the amount of white privilege they have? 

1.  Some of them can get into Ivy League schools, as legacies. 

2.  They can join some lineage organizations.  (The ones I have met have not.)

They have this in common with Barack  Obama and with the children of Henry Louis Gates (not to mention a few dozen children of black people that I know).  They lost all that wealth generations ago and inherited no political power.

Most white people, and most black people, do not get that first privilege.

I would suspect that most black people in the U.S. could more easily qualify for the second than most white people.  They might have a more difficult time documenting it.

I'm not seeing a huge privilege based on skin color.

[Vepres]

I believe in infrastructure investment, but aside from that, there are always people unemployed, and while I think they should get unemployment insurance to a point, 99 weeks (like this current congress tried to do) is pushing the limit (though this recession is different, so I don't really think it's bad). However, while I think less government is usually good, decreasing such insurance is silly when you have a three 800-pound gorillas in the room: social security, Medicare and Medicaid, and defense spending. Taking care of Snowguy's mother and the long term unemployed who are looking for jobs is a so small when put in perspective. I'm not SPC

What about in the long term though? It's generally agreed by a lot of people that many of the 8.2 million jobs we lost (according to government figures, in reality it's much worse for several reasons) won't come back.  What do we do for those people? Even menial labor is highly competitive at this point. Obviously I am generally very conservative but why should we just say 'tough luck' again when this has been a recurring, worsening problem for well over a decade by now? It just seems like a cop out at best to say 'that's how it's always been' if not indifferent.

We need to make an environment for new jobs. I think that once the economy starts growing in a robust enough fashion to create a significant number of net jobs over population growth, then I do think unemployment should be limited once again. Of course, one problem is that in the northeast and industrial Midwest, there is economic decay and slow job growth relative to the south and west (save California). I don't know what to do about that to be honest. However, I do think that the federal government should do more to work with 'declining' states' governments to try to reverse the trends, instead of dictating what they do.

There comes a point where tough love is the best option, IMO.


Now, Snowguy, I do think fair trade is reasonable under certain circumstances, though I hesitate to raise tariffs (though I'm not really that opposed to tariffs in principle, I just see practical downfalls to them). I'm a believer in creating new jobs, not trying to keep old ones here. I am a bit biased as this is what the economy in my region of the country largely is, but for example, try to get telecommunication companies like Level 3 or AT&T to upgrade and expand their networks in, say, Michigan. I don't know how one would do this, but it is more of a state level thing than a federal thing. Imagine the growth that would be created if every household in Detroit had access to fiber optics cables. The jobs created to build that, the inevitable influx of internet-reliant companies, it would be a boon to the area.

And BTW, I hold my views for very personal reasons too, I'm not some cold ideologue (though I don't have the balls to say what those reasons are).

[Mint]

I believe in infrastructure investment, but aside from that, there are always people unemployed, and while I think they should get unemployment insurance to a point, 99 weeks (like this current congress tried to do) is pushing the limit (though this recession is different, so I don't really think it's bad). However, while I think less government is usually good, decreasing such insurance is silly when you have a three 800-pound gorillas in the room: social security, Medicare and Medicaid, and defense spending. Taking care of Snowguy's mother and the long term unemployed who are looking for jobs is a so small when put in perspective. I'm not SPC

What about in the long term though? It's generally agreed by a lot of people that many of the 8.2 million jobs we lost (according to government figures, in reality it's much worse for several reasons) won't come back.  What do we do for those people? Even menial labor is highly competitive at this point. Obviously I am generally very conservative but why should we just say 'tough luck' again when this has been a recurring, worsening problem for well over a decade by now? It just seems like a cop out at best to say 'that's how it's always been' if not indifferent.

It may come down to something like creating a tax surcharge on imports that raise roughly the amount of income paid out to the workers whose jobs were outsourced and give all proceeds to small businesses that hire American workers.  If big, existing companies can't hire Americans and stay profitable, then we'll subsidize their competitors.

The idea is jobs... income.. growth... not some idealistic libertarian free market economy where we screw ourselves for the benefit of being pure in our principles.

I know.. PROTECTIONISM PROTECTIONISM... but unless you just support a livable dole for these people, free trade isn't going to solve this constant loss of jobs.

It's time the government stopped saying "you'd better stop this or I'll warn you again!" and said "times up now.  Pay up"

I agree to an extent. Really given the extreme corruption and negligence demonstrated by the Chinese government I don't think we should really be allowing any of their goods here until we get safety and inspection up to par, let alone giving them MFN. I'd be comfortable with us getting out of NAFTA and agreements like that and only allowing equal tariffs if they meet certain labor and environmental standards and don't continue to practice other more subtle forms of protectionism (like product 'delays' or heavy subsidization of their industries).

[phk]

Tbh. There isn't much people can do short of say the government hiring people to build roads, another to destroy them and another to rebuild it.

[Ameriplan]

It doesn't exist. End of story. Black privilege is rampant though.

[opebo]

It doesn't exist. End of story. Black privilege is rampant though.

That's interesting.  You know in my hometown of St. Louis nearly all the black people live in dire poverty in a ghetto, and there are populations of white people in exclusive neighborhoods who own nearly everything, and live in luxury in huge houses.   Now, true, most of the white people don't live in those neighborhoods and own everything, and quite a lot of the white people in those neighborhoods are, well.. you know.. but still, they d****d sure aren't black.

[fezzyfestoon]

It doesn't exist. End of story. Black privilege is rampant though.

Hahaha yeah, blacks are soooooo privileged in the US.  They have a rich history of advantageous circumstances for sure, like being owned...

[Ameriplan]

It doesn't exist. End of story. Black privilege is rampant though.

Hahaha yeah, blacks are soooooo privileged in the US.  They have a rich history of advantageous circumstances for sure, like being owned...

Yep, because history is what we're talking about here, isn't it? We're talking about the present.

[Ameriplan]

It doesn't exist. End of story. Black privilege is rampant though.

That's interesting.  You know in my hometown of St. Louis nearly all the black people live in dire poverty in a ghetto, and there are populations of white people in exclusive neighborhoods who own nearly everything, and live in luxury in huge houses.   Now, true, most of the white people don't live in those neighborhoods and own everything, and quite a lot of the white people in those neighborhoods are, well.. you know.. but still, they d****d sure aren't black.

And whose fault is that.