Ease Up, O'Haters

  • This topic has 59 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 6 years ago by Amus.
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 60 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #3138
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    Here’s my beef:

    It is completely honest to vote benefits. Doing that actually is important. There are checks and balances in the process.

    A big part of Democracy is understanding that how society runs isn’t just about you and your wallet.

    Extremist Liberitarians want a very small government doing police, courts, military and not much else. They often cite taxes as theft, while also not recognizing just how they earn their keep and who and what doing that depends on.

    In that scenario, we just let people die from nefarious business, say selling rotten food, or we don’t mind wage slavery, or the environment getting polluted…

    The belief that market forces can regulate everything is not demonstrated true at all, particularly when that idea is weighed against the basic expectations people have about risks and costs in their lives.

    There is no data supporting the idea that we should not let the poors vote either. In fact, the data we have shows the opposite! The more informed and involved people actually are, the better the policy and society generally is for everyone.

    On the left, or liberal extreme, people would have a basic income they can count on no matter what. Food, a home, or at least enough to pay a share of a place to sleep would promote the arts, science, and entertainment, leading to a vibrant, rich culture.

    People would be very free to live easy or take risks. It is likely we would see a ton of innovation and longer lives for that kind of policy.

    Is doing that any less valid?

    I don’t think so, and the difference comes down to value judgements. If I had to pay higher taxes, but I also knew people got a basic income, I would do it in a second! Could not wait to see what people actually do when not pulling 60-80 hour weeks trying to eat and sleep.

    Having some help out there along with some benefits lowers the cost and risk exposure people have to deal with, and that frees them to take risks and realize goals.

    Not everybody can be wealthy, but should so many people be so poor?

    What is worth what?

    Framing the vote of poor people as dishonest indicates a profound disconnect. I am finding it hard to contemplate how ugly that idea is. How the hell does somebody really get there?

    What isn’t honest is attempting to frame it as somehow the fault of poor people. Raw greed and selfish behavior isn’t pretty, and we have a shining example right here.

    F&B, not honest at all. You fucked up with that one and should feel considerable shame. I sure as hell would.

    #3139
    jr_tech
    Participant

    F&B,
    Attribution for quote, please.

    #3142
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    http://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alexander_Fraser_Tytler

    As for the experiment, we’ve seen that kind of thing play out numerous times. Not good.

    There are very good reasons why a representative democracy was chosen as the basis for the USA.

    Seems those who do not study and or remember history are doomed to repeat it.

    What I don’t get is this profound sense that “those other people” are somehow always at issue.

    Really?

    One could argue, F&B, that you are a completely sorry fuck, barely able to walk this world in such a state of befuddlement as to make others wonder at the indignant spectacle of it all.

    Ugly right?

    Or one could aruge that you have good intent and are merely seeking to improve things too.

    Prettier right?

    Those other people you always seem to go on about, gays, minorities, women, poors of all kind are no different from you. They need the same things, they work in similar ways, they have the same protection under the law, but for those times when people like you think it is somehow OK to discriminate against them.

    Problem area there.

    One could argue you really aren’t all that smart or well informed too.

    Ugly again isn’t it?

    Or, maybe one could argue that you are just seeking political answers right along with the rest of us, right?

    Pretty again, isn’t it?

    So what exactly tips the scale here?

    I would submit failing to process the dialog, get informed, think critically, give a shit about others, etc… does.

    When you write shit like that people wonder. I sure do.

    Just what makes you think YOU would be allowed to vote should we somehow go down that road?

    How exactly do you differ from those who you would have not vote?

    Really, these musings are very self centered and more than a bit disturbing.

    Worse, ongoing and consistent misinformation enables you and a fair –actually, alarming number of peers to somehow think it’s all OK, or even desirable.

    Worse still, this kind of garbage is always presented with the implied understanding that somehow, “we” aren’t “those other people” who “are the problem” and that if “we” just fuck them over, everything will be better!

    Ever read Douglas Adams?

    He tells the story of how a race of beings put all of their useless people on a big ship, said “trust us, we will follow”, and sent them far away on a one way trip. These people crashed here and are the origins of humans today, which is zany, funny shit!

    Humans have tried this by killing, isolating, imprisioning, torturing, fighting and every other means, all with that implied intent of it being better when “we” get rid of them.

    Shame on you for that. It’s embarrassing really. I don’t want to be in the same room with you at all. Don’t you have somewhere else to be, like with “them?”

    #3144
    edselehr
    Participant

    F&B: “I reailize what I said is unrealistic. But it would be an interesting thought experiment to see what shape the government would take if those who are earning the money that gets redistributed were in control of to whom and how much should be redistributed.”

    That “thought experiment” has already been done, it’s called a plutocracy, and voter suppression tactics are slowly making it a reality.

    And it’s more than unrealistic, it’s un-American.

    #3178
    Amus
    Participant

    “And it’s more than unrealistic, it’s un-American”

    I’d also be interested to know how one can square this kind of disdain for the poor with their Christian beliefs.

    #3180
    jerry1949
    Spectator

    Lots of “dodges” there, MK.

    Many that have been addressed and some new ones.

    You’ve got some issues with self-righteousness, dude. You’re no different thant the extreme fundies you hate. You’re preachy, angry, intolerant, hateful, and holier-than-thou.

    Your absense hasn’t changed you Amus. You’re still begging the question. You’re still presuming and imputing a bad motivation.

    I don’t have a disdain for the poor. The poor would do much better in a better system where the lazy and the greedy cannot vote themselves benefits and extravagances.

    #3183
    duxrule
    Participant

    Does “the greedy” include the Koch Brothers, et. al.?

    #3184
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    Yeah, you say that, but the history and economic data does not support it.

    As for issues, hey. Bring ’em. Back that shit up, or it is all just laughable whining.

    And I don’t hate most of the people under discussion. I have no basis for that. I do very strongly disapprove and frequently disregard and will say why too. This gets labeled as Alinksy tactics.

    Well?
    BTW, I did not make claims. What I did do was show how things can be colored by perception of intent.

    You repeatedly say poor people would be better off should some of your policy preferences be realized.

    So the implied intents is good, right? They are better off. Having grown up very poor, I can identify with that intent.

    However, when the data and history does not support your policy vision actually having the potential for them to be better off, and that gets shown repeatedly, while at the same time you make a claim of the system being more honest with them locked out of the process, just what are people supposed to think?

    That rhetoric was an attempt to get you to actualize that in your mind.

    Doing that isn’t hate not being self rightous. It is just potent discussion. I don’t do this to just have fun, though I often do.

    I do this to think and see others think, and when we press hard, good things can come of it, but then again it can all get ugly too.

    In an attempt to push the ugly away, I’m mqking this meta post to explain the above.

    Really, since you have returned, I have been working under the assumption your intent is good.

    It is perfectly rational and reasonable and acceptable to indicate you should feel some shame for such a gross gaff.

    That is all. I would feel shame for that myself as I would experience seeing my intent undermined by the idea of a policy vision that runs counter to it, despite me being sold on the it being a good idea.

    See the difference? It is subtle, and you gotta work for it a little. Do that work. You will be better for it as will the rest of us.

    That is why I do this.
    So what? If they didn’t open the door, there would be no discussion.

    Like I’ve said the whole time, bring it, or own your discussion, support it properly and quit whining about others who do.

    #3185
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    BTW, I did not make claims. What I did do was show how things can be colored by perception of intent.

    You repeatedly say poor people would be better off should some of your policy preferences be realized.

    So the implied intents is good, right? They are better off. Having grown up very poor, I can identify with that intent.

    However, when the data and history does not support your policy vision actually having the potential for them to be better off, and that gets shown repeatedly, while at the same time you make a claim of the system being more honest with them locked out of the process, just what are people supposed to think?

    That rhetoric was an attempt to get you to actualize that in your mind.

    Doing that isn’t hate not being self rightous. It is just potent discussion. I don’t do this to just have fun, though I often do.

    I do this to think and see others think, and when we press hard, good things can come of it, but then again it can all get ugly too.

    In an attempt to push the ugly away, I’m mqking this meta post to explain the above.

    Really, since you have returned, I have been working under the assumption your intent is good.

    It is perfectly rational and reasonable and acceptable to indicate you should feel some shame for such a gross gaff.

    That is all. I would feel shame for that myself as I would experience seeing my intent undermined by the idea of a policy vision that runs counter to it, despite me being sold on the it being a good idea.

    See the difference? It is subtle, and you gotta work for it a little. Do that work. You will be better for it as will the rest of us.

    That is why I do this.

    #3187
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    I just edited the above a few times, and this #$T^I!*L mobile device isn’t playing ball.

    Just saved it and will try later.

    F&B, until I can drop it here, know it is difficult to see a good intent when the policy vision you advocate is difficult to connect to the good outcome potential you associate with it.

    The tough discussion surrounds that. Bring some data to the table, or please reconsider something much easier to associate in that way.

    It very regularly appears you blame poors for being poor, and that clashes with the intent to see them be better off.

    Resolving that better would simply be better discussion. No hate in any of it, just honest dialog.

    #3188
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    Test

    #3245
    Amus
    Participant

    Your absence hasn’t changed you Amus.

    F&B,

    Please accept my apology if you felt that my taking a leave of absence from the forum had anything to do with you.

    Trust me when I say I still find you every bit as fatuous and odious as I did before.

    Many of your posts in the intervening period have only solidified that assessment.

    Although it really shouldn’t be all that surprising that you felt it was about you considering your inflated view of your own intelligence and self worth.

    For what it’s worth, my comments about members of the Catholic faith viewing child molestation as a perk were over the top, and I’m not proud of that even though it was intended to be darkly tongue-in-cheek.

    That said, I still feel that on balance, the Catholic Church does more harm than good.
    I do have considerable respect for Francis and what He’s trying to do.
    Anyone who gets badmouthed by Limbaugh the drug addict gets points in my book.

    What really caused me to back-off was that when I looked at some of my recent posts, I was beginning to emulate the wrong Deane.

    Also, after this past election cycle, I am now convinced that Herb is being compensated as a troll.

    Now,
    A couple of direct questions;

    1. Do you consider poverty a sin? (when I hear comments like yours the first thing I think of is prosperity theology).

    2. How far above the poverty line would someone have to get before you would grant them their rights as a citizen?

    #3248
    edselehr
    Participant

    @Amus: 🙂

    #3250
    skeptical
    Participant

    Amus: I am now convinced that Herb is being compensated as a troll.

    Agreed. Maybe even underwritten by the Koch bros.

    #3254
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    I sure have wondered about that paid troll status. It has come up in the past a few times too.

    Could just be something lightly organized too. Astroturfing isn’t always a compensated thing. I do notice the silence afterword. We’ve seen it a few times now.

    Odd.

    @F&B: You have some self-imposed rules intended to secure your place here. Honestly, I get it.

    Consider relaxing the ones that limit your response to direct questions.

    I can’t speak for others, but I personally give a lot of credence to direct answers and dialog. Just saying…

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 60 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.