The General American Politics Thread

[Tani Coyote]

6 hours ago, Tornado said:

This isn't really a justification for why wealthy people shouldn't want to pay the least amount of taxes just like everyone else does.

Oh, I think it's natural for everyone to want to pay less in taxes.

But there comes a point where one acknowledges one's stake in society and pays it gladly. I sure as Hell don't like my money being sucked out of my pocket every year, but I remember that I'm ultimately better off for it. Paying my share also gives me more interest in being skeptical of how it's spent.

Which a lot of wealthy people are not doing.

"Why should they have to pay more?" Because they benefit more from the system. All that wealth goes away without it.

It's a historical irony that the wealthy tend to be more cosmopolitan, given they're the ones who are the most rooted in place.

5 hours ago, Candescence said:

In a way, it's somewhat bizarre that universal basic income isn't an established system, since many people on the left and right find it appealing - it reduces inequality and effectively eliminates poverty, helps future-proof society for a mostly-automated economy that effectively eliminates most human labor, allows more people to go into professions that don't provide immediate financial support (various arts, academia, etc) and vastly simplifies the welfare system along with making it more efficient.

Though I think the main root causes are free market libertarians loathing the mere thought of people not "earning the right to escape from poverty", notions that unemployment will skyrocket if people don't need to work (which is disproven by basic income experiments, which show that unemployment really only drops slightly, and that's mostly due to students choosing to focus on studies and mothers and/or fathers staying at home to look after their children), and established nonsense about "underserving poor" and "bootstraps" and that garbage. I wouldn't be surprised if Randians tried to point to the Speenhamland experiment and the practically fraudulent royal commission that deemed it a disaster. Thankfully, such bullshit is easier than ever to take a sledgehammer to.

Alas, any rebuff will probably be dismissed as left wing bias.

It can't possibly be that reality does in fact have a left wing "bias."

Regarding the earlier "undeserving poor" narrative, sadly that's actually been around for a long time in America and I presume a lot of other countries. Charities regularly refused aid to the able bodied, especially if they were men.

I think it really boils down to diverging values after World War II.

Europe, reduced to its lowest point in quite some time (I think only the Black Death is comparable in terms of destruction and that only affected the people), said enough was enough, and got to work building a social model (although of course there are social welfare programs prior to the War, many ironically started by reactionaries) that is about caring for one's fellow man. Imperialism and militarism became secondary to the social good (although of course Britain and France still do their fair share of intervention, but nowhere near on the scale we do). 

America went the other way. Seeing ourselves as the last hope for the world against Stalinism, we conditioned ourselves to be in opposition in every possible way. They have universal healthcare, free housing, etc.? We can't have that. And so the term "socialism" entered our dictionary as a slur for any attempt to care for society's poor. Then we crafted this sociopathic state of affairs where you're only seen as deserving of state aid if you are a veteran or disabled.

While admittedly I ponder where the world would have gone without the United States (European countries were starting to lick up Communism prior to the Marshall Plan and reconstruction efforts), I don't think we had to become so far right to defeat communism. Social democracy is perfectly stable, and as mentioned, the first modern welfare program was created by a CONSERVATIVE.

Of course, at the same time, it didn't become fully politically palatable (people loved the New Deal programs) to criticize social assistance until black people were able to sign up for in droves. I guess the idea was pre-war programs could stay, but the Cold War prohibited too much expansion of the welfare state, hence our lack of universal healthcare and other programs typical in Western nations.

It really is amazing how much the South (with periodic support for working class racism in the North and West) has fucked this country over, again and again.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

19 hours ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

Then you're not saying humans are bastards. You're saying SOME humans are bastards, and others can periodically be bastards.

Personally, I don't see the difference.

SOME humans being bastards or periodically so forces the others to be bastards merely to fight back and/or survive. So as far as I'm concerned, humans are bastards - you being less of one and having more good traits compared to the bad in others doesn't make you a non-bastard to me.

[KHCast]

1 hour ago, ChaosSupremeSonic said:

Personally, I don't see the difference.

SOME humans being bastards or periodically so forces the others to be bastards merely to fight back and/or survive. So as far as I'm concerned, humans are bastards - you being less of one and having more good traits compared to the bad in others doesn't make you a non-bastard to me.

So what in your mind then constitutes someone as a bastard? Cause that's a bold claim. People aren't perfect, people make mistakes.  We aren't black and white most of the time,and there are no absolutes. Holding those mistakes as justification that someone is a bastard no matter what(with exceptions) even after they've changed seems not only unfair, but close minded. Really, how am I forced to be a dick to someone that's being a dick to me, when I can simply either ignore them, or simply give them my regards respectfully and move on. Unless everything I do to you comes off as an asshole retort, I don't see how your logic works. You don't need to be an asshole to survive nor rely on the more negative aspects of your humanity to fight back. Look at MLK, Ghandhi, and Jesus.

[Tani Coyote]

5 hours ago, ChaosSupremeSonic said:

Personally, I don't see the difference.

SOME humans being bastards or periodically so forces the others to be bastards merely to fight back and/or survive. So as far as I'm concerned, humans are bastards - you being less of one and having more good traits compared to the bad in others doesn't make you a non-bastard to me.

Not... really.

A few murderers don't force the rest of us to murder.

A few thieves don't force the rest of us to steal.

While it's true that living in a poorer, crime-ridden area does increase levels of coldness, that's more of a survival response than anything fundamental about the person. They will most likely soften back up if their condition improves and they move elsewhere. Also note: the only reason for the douchebaggery is BECAUSE that sort of poverty exists. Meanwhile, our rather brutal prison system significantly shoots up one's tendency to be violent, but this is, again, a product of circumstances. Maybe we should improve conditions or, I don't know, avoid sending people to prison unless they're dangerous.

The data, furthermore, seems to say that the Ayn Rand line of thinking is scientifically wrong:

http://healthland.time.com/2012/10/08/is-human-nature-fundamentally-selfish-or-altruistic/

We are a social species. We have long since developed ideas that there are a lot of selfish actions you just do not do. Some selfish behavior is a must for survival, but that is increasingly less true given the presence of a modern system where we can reliably provide for each other. Especially in terms of abundant resources.

Consider this: in earlier societies, a disability that seriously hampered one's ability to participate in the economy was seen as grounds to be euthanized (because resources were scarce). But with plentiful resources, this is no longer common practice and we consider such a thing to be wrong. We have evolved in many ways past our jungle mentality by merit of a different situation.

It's also why that Biblical "you must work to eat" mantra is obsolete and really needs to be tossed out. It's from a time where not working could seriously imperil a society if done by more than a few people. We don't have a problem with obesity because food is scarce today. Never mind the economy's changed in such a way that pretty much anyone can contribute something regardless of any disabilities they have.

[caseykz]

1 hour ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

It's also why that Biblical "you must work to eat" mantra is obsolete and really needs to be tossed out. It's from a time where not working could seriously imperil a society if done by more than a few people. 

Please say this does not apply to people who have no reason to not work.

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

It should apply to everyone. Even if the person doesn't want to work they still deserve to eat

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

6 hours ago, KHCast said:

So what in your mind then constitutes someone as a bastard? Cause that's a bold claim.

Lack of empathy and disregard of understanding, excessive greed, unnecessary vitriol in defense of biases (particularly minor ones), myopic views, inflated egos toward in-groups, being told in detail what someone means and blatantly misrepresenting the meaning, etc.

So yeah, let's just say that I distrust people overall.

Quote

People aren't perfect, people make mistakes.  We aren't black and white most of the time,and there are no absolutes.

...this coming right after I previously said,

On May 12, 2016 at 11:49 PM, ChaosSupremeSonic said:

You don't have to be outright paranoid of specific people to believe humans can be bastards. It's not all black and white, which quite frankly is another factor I believe humans are bastards because many of them believe in such binary terms that they don't consider that things might (tho not always) be more ambiguous than what they make it out to be, and risk causing the very problems they sought to prevent without understanding things outside their perspective.

Like seriously...

2 hours ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

Not... really.

A few murderers don't force the rest of us to murder.

A few thieves don't force the rest of us to steal.

Examples which are complete slippery slopes of what I mean. Just because someone killed someone doesn't force you to go kill others yourself, nor does a few thieves force others to go and steal. If you're not in the position to do those things, then you're not likely to do them especially considering the consequences that you risk for them.

[Diogenes]

If the true bastards make us all bastards, do the true saints make us all saints?

[Dizcrybe]

What if the saints are also bastards?

On a serious note I think the point was that there are no true saints.

[caseykz]

Anyways, here's a little insight of Asia's view on your politics.

http://www.straitstimes.com/world/united-states/next-us-presidents-asian-agenda?xtor=EREC-16-1%5BST_Newsletter_AM%5D-20160515-%5BWhat%20US%20election%20holds%20for%20Asia%20ties%5D&xts=538291

includes a few of other countries' preferences in the links.

/spoiler/ China indicates a slight preference for Trump lol. Imo, Sino-US relations would worsen. But at least, China would have better hold over South Asia, especially if TPP fails. 

[KHCast]

22 minutes ago, Dizcrybe said:

What if the saints are also bastards?

On a serious note I think the point was that there are no true saints.

And we're saying not being a 100% true good saint doesn't make you a dick/bastard automatically.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

11 hours ago, Diogenes said:

If the true bastards make us all bastards, do the true saints make us all saints?

 What "true saints?" What kinda myth is that?

[Tani Coyote]

23 hours ago, caseykz said:

Please say this does not apply to people who have no reason to not work.

No, it still applies.

Market economies require unemployment to function. It is unreasonable to expect everyone to work. Morals and ethics are inferior to data when it comes to policy. Governing from moral standards alone is what exacerbates things like depressions.

And if we DID still require everyone to work, that's going to cause 1) people who can't feed themselves to die out, thus leading to inflation anyway, or 2) a shitton of people stealing to survive. People will not take starvation lying down.

Just bite the bullet and make food benefits unconditional. Especially in a society like the United States where it's overabundant.

It speaks volumes that the Romans - who we worship in just about everything - were savvy enough to provide free or heavily-subsidized food for the sake of stability, but we continue to drag our heels on it.

22 hours ago, ChaosSupremeSonic said:

Examples which are complete slippery slopes of what I mean. Just because someone killed someone doesn't force you to go kill others yourself, nor does a few thieves force others to go and steal. If you're not in the position to do those things, then you're not likely to do them especially considering the consequences that you risk for them.

Well, the examples you give aren't really convincing that people are bastards as I was using the term. Narrowminded, sure, but that's not the way I was using "bastard." Narrowmindedness, while not ideal, can also be partially forgiven because people aren't perfect.

I'm using the conservative rendition. That is, we are all monsters and will turn on each other in the absence of strict laws to keep us in check.

Which is blatant nonsense. Hobbes fell out of favor for a reason (for being too narrowminded (fittingly enough with your conception of bastards) to understand the brutality he saw wasn't from anarchy, but from two competing regimes brutalizing each other).

[caseykz]

33 minutes ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

No, it still applies.

Market economies require unemployment to function. It is unreasonable to expect everyone to work. Morals and ethics are inferior to data when it comes to policy. Governing from moral standards alone is what exacerbates things like depressions.

And if we DID still require everyone to work, that's going to cause 1) people who can't feed themselves to die out, thus leading to inflation anyway, or 2) a shitton of people stealing to survive. People will not take starvation lying down.

Just bite the bullet and make food benefits unconditional. Especially in a society like the United States where it's overabundant.

It speaks volumes that the Romans - who we worship in just about everything - were savvy enough to provide free or heavily-subsidized food for the sake of stability, but we continue to drag our heels on it.

unemployed means ppl who are willing and able to work but can't find a job. Retirees, housewives, students etc not included. 

would you provide for a relative who is bankrupt, refuses to work, but keeps asking you to lend money to him? You already know he won't pay you back. How will the government discourage this kind of behaviour then? 

I did say 'people who have no reasons to not work', notice that double negative. Even then, in my society, if you are too old or disabled, the government lets you have the easier jobs, like selling tissue paper. 

Unless your economy can't create jobs fast enough. Then that's too bad, because firing people is easier than cutting wages.

Sadly, if US can't prevent crime while trying to enforce meritocracy, then maybe policies should focus on stability. Or raise wages for law enforcers, or something.

[Tani Coyote]

On 5/15/2016 at 8:18 AM, caseykz said:

would you provide for a relative who is bankrupt, refuses to work, but keeps asking you to lend money to him? You already know he won't pay you back. How will the government discourage this kind of behaviour then? 

It is inherently apples and oranges to compare private financial decisions with those of the states by merit of the nature and resources involved.

I would not do this myself, no, but that's why the state exists.

The government doesn't need to discourage this kind of behavior. Most people are not eager to live off welfare for their entire lives.

Remember: it was possible to do just that for decades. Most people still left the rolls when opportunities came their way.

A lot of libertarian and conservative folks argue the government should be run like a corporation. I'm going to, as a businessman, throw this logic back in their faces: sometimes in business, you take a loss (and anyone who argues that good businessmen won't ever have losses has clearly never been in business or is ignorant to their own luck). A few welfare mooches are that loss on the government's spreadsheet, but the benefits of such programs outweigh these "losses."

Quote

Even then, in my society, if you are too old or disabled, the government lets you have the easier jobs, like selling tissue paper. 

Unless your economy can't create jobs fast enough. Then that's too bad, because firing people is easier than cutting wages.

Sadly, if US can't prevent crime while trying to enforce meritocracy, then maybe policies should focus on stability. Or raise wages for law enforcers, or something.

And stability is helped through unconditional benefits, which make sense for both economic and humanitarian reasons.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

On 5/15/2016 at 9:11 AM, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

Well, the examples you give aren't really convincing that people are bastards as I was using the term. Narrowminded, sure, but that's not the way I was using "bastard." Narrowmindedness, while not ideal, can also be partially forgiven because people aren't perfect.

I'm using the conservative rendition. That is, we are all monsters and will turn on each other in the absence of strict laws to keep us in check.

Which is blatant nonsense. Hobbes fell out of favor for a reason (for being too narrowminded (fittingly enough with your conception of bastards) to understand the brutality he saw wasn't from anarchy, but from two competing regimes brutalizing each other).

People aren't perfect, but I'd like to think that they know better, and many of them don't.

That's not to say we're monsters that will turn on each other, and if that's what certain conservatives think, then no wonder it's nonsense. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, one that people have been pointing out over the years. War on Drugs, excessive militarization of police (I actually see the point in some militarization, but it becomes stupid when you use military equipment on unarmed protesters), etc.

Yet, you say they're strict - I'd call them more arbitrary. They're for strict laws for some things (like drugs), but then they don't want to be strict for others (like gun laws). You'd think the Prohibition would have at least taught them the problem with the former.

[Tani Coyote]

18 hours ago, ChaosSupremeSonic said:

People aren't perfect, but I'd like to think that they know better, and many of them don't.

That's not to say we're monsters that will turn on each other, and if that's what certain conservatives think, then no wonder it's nonsense. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, one that people have been pointing out over the years. War on Drugs, excessive militarization of police (I actually see the point in some militarization, but it becomes stupid when you use military equipment on unarmed protesters), etc.

Yet, you say they're strict - I'd call them more arbitrary. They're for strict laws for some things (like drugs), but then they don't want to be strict for others (like gun laws). You'd think the Prohibition would have at least taught them the problem with the former.

Well, that's more a result of American culture more than anything. We spent most of our history as a nation with a small army (the Founders remembered Cromwell's takeover of England quite well) that would swell with militia volunteers whenever we were in a major war. The Army's job was basically rounding up Indians for deportation and putting down civil disturbances most of the time. As a result of this, the interest in firearms is deeply ingrained in our psyche in a way few cultures can match.

On the whole though, they think most people are untrustworthy. I mean heck, that's one of the main defenses of firearm ownership: being able to defend yourself against the rare chance of aggression. Even though there is data that indicates our level of gun ownership causes more problems than its worth (in fairness, data also says that a much higher rate of gun ownership COULD yield benefits because of how risky crime becomes).

American conservatism also has a healthy infusion of Christian literalist dogma, which holds that humans are innately evil because of two dumbasses thousands of years ago.

Overall, American conservatism, for varying reasons, has a pessimistic outlook on human behavior, always assuming the worst. Even though history has shown that in an orderly society, we tend to do small acts of kindness for each other, and scorn those who do not keep their selfish behavior in check. We are convenient collectivists; we value our individualism, but we still like to help each other out every so often. This is where the state steps in; with its coercive power, it is able to make sure we help each other far more often, by setting up a strong social safety net.

Even in societies with much stronger welfare systems, there is a LOT of disdain for people who live on the dole in perpetuity. A lot of people have conservative values if not conservative policies. The real difference between the left and right wing ideologies, I think, may just be their ability to reconcile ideology with circumstances. I think most people will agree that living off state aid, having children before being able to support them, dropping out of school, drug addiction, etc. are undesirable. The right-wing leans towards throwing these people out on the basis of rugged individualism (i.e. you are 100% responsible for everything in your life), whereas the left-wing leans towards trying to accommodate them (because of a recognition that your choices only affect part of your outcome).

If your favorite ice cream flavor is chocolate, but the shop only offers vanilla and strawberry, did you really choose strawberry, when you would have preferred chocolate, but could not have it because the shopkeeper's choice was not to stock it? The answer to this question will shed light on where one stands in the political spectrum.

[Dizcrybe]

Surely there are other ice cream shops.

[Tani Coyote]

On 5/18/2016 at 4:36 AM, Dizcrybe said:

Surely there are other ice cream shops.

No.

Because certain politicians think it's evil socialism to make sure there's a variety of flavors.

And even if there are, what if it's not convenient to where you are? Again though, it'd be evil socialism to make sure there's an equitable spread of choices across the country.

Let us remember the colossal failure that most Southern economies are, and perhaps we can get an idea which Party is both morally and intellectually bankrupt.

I relish the fact Greece and Spain are brought up as "proof" that European economic policies are a failure (ignoring the fact there are plenty of other problems in these two nations that couldn't POSSIBLY influence their economic problems. Greece in particular has widespread tax evasion and fraud, for example), when pretty much the whole damned South is a giant leech that would rapidly shrivel up without federal funds to fill its belly. The GOP points at the urban poor with their supposed welfare abuse as a blight on our society, all while ignoring the fact their stronghold in the South has made no real improvements in the span of almost 100 years.

Maybe if our system actually cared for the poor as a matter of principle, we wouldn't feel the need to create so many ABC programs to do it.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

On 5/18/2016 at 8:10 PM, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

Well, that's more a result of American culture more than anything. We spent most of our history as a nation with a small army (the Founders remembered Cromwell's takeover of England quite well) that would swell with militia volunteers whenever we were in a major war. The Army's job was basically rounding up Indians for deportation and putting down civil disturbances most of the time. As a result of this, the interest in firearms is deeply ingrained in our psyche in a way few cultures can match.

On the whole though, they think most people are untrustworthy. I mean heck, that's one of the main defenses of firearm ownership: being able to defend yourself against the rare chance of aggression. Even though there is data that indicates our level of gun ownership causes more problems than its worth (in fairness, data also says that a much higher rate of gun ownership COULD yield benefits because of how risky crime becomes).

My problem is less the fact that we have Gun Ownership (which I actually support), but the fact that how loose gun ownership makes it easier for psychopaths get one and shoot up churches, malls, or movie theaters (which I'm against) and how a lot of the GOP are against tightening that so such a thing doesn't happen for fear that this will somehow make us defenseless (which I disagree with on many levels). That seems to be changing as some are seeking to test for psychological disorders when it comes to gun ownership, but still.

Honestly, I can understand the pessimism and the assumption of the worst that conservatives display, and in some ways I agree with it. But I'm not so dense to think that there isn't some measure of goodness, even if I cynically think it's still out of survival or some degree of self-interest. If anything, I think a lot of conservatives use that as a shield to justify being immoral at worst, at that at a lot of their ideas end up causing the very thing they claim to defend against. Not that there aren't morons on the left who don't seem to think their ideas through or who actually believed the same shit as the right and are trying to play like they never did (Hillary being one example), but I see a lot of the right as causing more harm by comparison.

On 5/18/2016 at 8:10 PM, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

If your favorite ice cream flavor is chocolate, but the shop only offers vanilla and strawberry, did you really choose strawberry, when you would have preferred chocolate, but could not have it because the shopkeeper's choice was not to stock it? The answer to this question will shed light on where one stands in the political spectrum.

Well, nothing wrong with Strawberry if those are my only choices.

Where does that make me stand?

[Tani Coyote]

19 minutes ago, ChaosSupremeSonic said:

Honestly, I can understand the pessimism and the assumption of the worst that conservatives display, and in some ways I agree with it. But I'm not so dense to think that there isn't some measure of goodness, even if I cynically think it's still out of survival or some degree of self-interest. If anything, I think a lot of conservatives use that as a shield to justify being immoral at worst, at that at a lot of their ideas end up causing the very thing they claim to defend against. Not that there aren't morons on the left who don't seem to think their ideas through or who actually believed the same shit as the right and are trying to play like they never did (Hillary being one example), but I see a lot of the right as causing more harm by comparison.

I always considered it cowardice on their part. There's a lot of messed up elements to humanity, so we attribute it to our genetic makeup rather than our sociology. Even if it is in our blood, we ignore the fact we might possibly be able to change that blood for the better in future generations. My personal favorite is "communism won't work because humans are assholes," completely ignoring the myriad of other factors that have caused the collapse of socialist states.

It becomes extra hilarious when you compare the United States to other countries. Inequality correlates with poorer health, unhappiness, social distrust, crime, mental illness, etc.

All this quite possibly means that it isn't humanity that's messed up. It's America that is.

I would argue it's the same reason these other countries with high rates of gun ownership don't have anywhere near as many mass shootings. There's a fundamental difference in both our politics and culture that give us a jungle mentality. We glorify violence from the top to the bottom, for starters.

We have sent a clear message to every murderer with our use of capital punishment alone: death is the ultimate punishment, so you best express your power through murder. It allows butchers like Timothy McVeigh to gloat the "score" was "168 to 1" all the way to the gallows.

Quote

Well, nothing wrong with Strawberry if those are my only choices.

Where does that make me stand?

I would argue ambivalence. There's also the possibility that this outcome is okay with you, but not for others.

In sociology, I believe this is called adaption. The disadvantaged cease fighting for equity and focus on getting by within the current system instead.

It works wonders when there's a tyranny of the minority (e.g. many parts of the South, or, more boldly, the capitalist system itself) in play. It allows oppressive systems to continue, because the oppressed are more focused on survival than changing the conditions that might make survival that much easier.

That's to say nothing of the tendency for one oppressed group to join in oppressing another for the sake of its own benefit. It's another marvelous tactic in sustaining stratification that stems from a lack of intersectional analysis of issues.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

9 minutes ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

I always considered it cowardice. There's a lot of messed up elements to humanity, so we attribute it to our genetic makeup rather than our sociology. Even if it is in our blood, we ignore the fact we might possibly be able to change that blood for the better in future generations.

I dunno. I think that's kinda stupid attributing it to our genetic makeup. That argument seems to justify a lot of things like racism and sexism, and our violence. Which again is kinda causing or worsening a lot of the problems some people think they're trying to prevent.

Sounds more like it's our sociology, and some are more conditioned to their messed up elements that they either don't want to change themselves or change the messed up parts of our system because they either see no other way or because they don't want others to have things as good as they do.

9 minutes ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

I would argue ambivalence. There's also the possibility that this outcome is okay with you, but not for others.

In sociology, I believe this is called adaption. The disadvantaged cease fighting for equity and focus on getting by within the current system instead.

I suppose it depends on the situation, tho I can't say I'd find the outcome okay all the time. I'll fight for equity, but I'm not gonna challenge something with the same tactic all the time if it hasn't helped much if I can find another way to do it. That's just insane.

[Tani Coyote]

4 minutes ago, ChaosSupremeSonic said:

I dunno. I think that's kinda stupid attributing it to our genetic makeup. That argument seems to justify a lot of things like racism and sexism, and our violence. Which again is kinda causing or worsening a lot of the problems some people think they're trying to prevent.

And that's just one more reason I find right-wing ideology bunk.

It's funny, because conservatives are usually the first to criticize lowering standards in hiring, education, etc.

What about lowering standards for human behavior?

Quote

I suppose it depends on the situation, tho I can't say I'd find the outcome okay all the time. I'll fight for equity, but I'm not gonna challenge something with the same tactic all the time if it hasn't helped much if I can find another way to do it. That's just insane.

Granted, my use of ice cream is a rather mundane one in and of itself, but it's supposed to highlight the varying opportunities in hiring, pay, education, residence, wealth, etc.

The real issue with any sort of social issue is getting the numbers. We are mostly water, and just like water, we prefer the path of least resistance.

Even something like world peace wouldn't be THAT difficult to achieve, actually, but it requires that the vast bulk of humanity not be blindsided by petty squabbles and keep that vision in mind. Unfortunately, grudges and grievances are very quick to seize our attention. Why make peace when they killed your brother for killing their father for killing your son for killing their sister?

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

3 minutes ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

And that's just one more reason I find right-wing ideology bunk.

It's funny, because conservatives are usually the first to criticize lowering standards in hiring, education, etc.

What about lowering standards for human behavior?

It's interesting because I think conservatives actually have a point when it comes to lowering standards.

But I think it's less that some are criticizing the lowering and more that they don't want people they find undesirable being on the same playing field for them to compete with, and would rather hog everything for themselves. Say for instance, a woman in the military - even if they actually achieves the standards, even better than some of her male counterparts, opponents will try for an excuse to bar them from being apart of it (the classic "it's a man's job" even if they don't want to be caught saying it).

[Tani Coyote]

13 minutes ago, ChaosSupremeSonic said:

It's interesting because I think conservatives actually have a point when it comes to lowering standards.

But I think it's less that some are criticizing the lowering and more that they don't want people they find undesirable being on the same playing field for them to compete with, and would rather hog everything for themselves. Say for instance, a woman in the military - even if they actually achieves the standards, even better than some of her male counterparts, opponents will try for an excuse to bar them from being apart of it (the classic "it's a man's job" even if they don't want to be caught saying it).

My personal favorite goes to education. A college with an affirmative action program might allow slightly lower test scores for a minority student. Cue arms being thrown up in rage.

Even though things besides test scores determine entry anyway (character being one; you can be a genius and still be a major douchelord. This is one reason letters of recommendation play a role), plus there's the fact a lot of minority individuals will come from a background that isn't conductive to higher test scores to begin with. There's a proven correlation between nutrition and brain development, to say nothing of the poorer quality of schools in the inner cities (though of course not all minority people live in poverty and I won't suggest such as Bernie Sanders implied in one of his biggest faux pases). This is another case of glorious right-wing doublethink: they celebrate college assistance to the poor as a way to break the cycle, but continue to support policies that make sure the poor have far fewer opportunities to succeed in college.

It's no coincidence that college students from poorer backgrounds have a much larger sense of loss than their wealthier peers in the university environment.

Man, I'm just thinking how many brilliant people we've probably missed out on because conservatives won't get behind something as basic as food security.