| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
How dare you try to put some sanity into a political thread! You ought to be ashamed of yourself! What do you think we are, adults? HARUMPH!!!
~grins~
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's telling you that when you tell a white guy with 3 kids that just lost his job and he's going to be homeless with his kids in CPS that he's "privileged" to be white and male you are catapulting him into the republican polls.
Has anyone in this thread said poor white people don't have very difficult lives? Has anyone said that working class white people are doing hunky dory? No.
Let me state it outright. Your hypothetical white dude, unexpectedly unemployed and with 3 kids, has it f!cking hard. But you can't credibly tell me that your hypothetical dad wouldn't most likely have a harder time turning his circumstances around if he was also a black man. Or Middle Eastern-looking. Or openly gay. Or openly transgender. It ain't zero sum. It ain't the Oppression Olympics. Recognizing hypothetical poor black dude very likely hasn't had the same opportunities in America as hypothetical poor white dude isn't any kind of insult to poor white dude. It sucks horribly to be poor, especially when trapped in generational poverty, regardless of your skin color. No one in this thread disputes that.
without immediate attempts by the non-disadvantaged to shut the topic down by policing language and dismissing their specific examples.And look what you just did. You're non disadvantaged nothing you say matters. You are trying to sway people but you're telling them that they're blind and pointless... You do not see who has it the worst and then that person is right: ideas stand or fall based on their own merit not who's saying them.
I didn't say that. Ideas can't stand or fall if they aren't being heard. If a dude without feet says it's difficult getting in and out of many local businesses, how hard is it to listen to him? Is he right? Is he wrong? How can the discussion even get to that point if no one even listens when he speaks up? Or when he speaks up, other people immediately shut him down complaining about their arthritis or lack of shoes? Solution(s) to help all three of them don't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive, or punitive to some for the sake of the other(s). But it takes listening. And efforts at empathy don't hurt.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not claiming I have the answers, or even workable suggestions. I'm just saying the inequities in our society need to be acknowledged as actually existing, so they can then be discussed....These are some steps that would help
-Fund obamacare off of genuinely progressive taxation, not payroll taxes.
-overturn citizens united (i was glad to see that this came up during the campaign)
- public financing option for campaigns to opt into, so that you don't need to be a corporate shill to be a viable candidate
-vastly increase the national subsidation of education
-expand social services
- 30 hour work week (forces more hires) Eliminate "management"/salaried position loopholes
-make election day a national holiday
-expand the voting rights act to be nation wide
- make the current police violence incident reporting mandatory
if i wanted to go nuts, social security for everyone. Everyone gets a certain dollar amount, no questions asked , build off of it if you can. Social services currently have a doughnut hole where you can't make any money unless you can make a LOT of money, all at once, with little way to get from A to B.
Yes, we agree on all those things.
But... that's only a single prong. You can't begin to achieve true equality and justice by tackling only the economics. You also have to go after the generationally baked-in racism and sexism. You have to go after discrimination against other religions and against the non-religious. You have to go after discrimination against LGBT folk. This isn't accomplished by holding the majority down; it's done by raising the dis-advantaged up. Strong, sane laws with real teeth and civilian oversight are needed to push for non-discrimination in access to: job opportunities, loan opportunities, affordable housing, good public schools, quality preventative healthcare and treatment, legal services, child adoption, and more. I'm not saying working class white people don't have difficulty accessing these things (and it's damn harder for white poor folk). I'm. not. saying. that. But this country has a documented history of deliberately building the system to disproportionately punish the minorities for being minorities. Redlining, voter suppression, defunding minority-serving public schools to pay for largely white-serving charter schools, the current horsesh!t with "religious exemption" clauses to discriminate against LGBT and non-Christian folk... these things and numerous others still exist. Addressing them doesn't mean oppressing or blaming the majority, but they can't keep being ignored.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my bubble, both of those are exceeded in number by people who want jobs.
So they voted for the party that when it was last in power produced the worst job losses since the Great Depression and against the party that had just provided the longest streak of continuous job growth ever recorded.
How can anyone not see the flaw in this plan?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my bubble, both of those are exceeded in number by people who want jobs.So they voted for the party that when it was last in power produced the worst job losses since the Great Depression and against the party that had just provided the longest streak of continuous job growth ever recorded.
How can anyone not see the flaw in this plan?
Marketing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my bubble, both of those are exceeded in number by people who want jobs.most Trump voters I know fall into two camps:
1. Blatant bigots, of the "Islam is evil" variety.
2. People who just really, really hated Clinton.
Yeah. Imagine that Company A and Company B are both going to be downsizing.
Company A says, "Next Monday will be Employee Appreciation Day for a transgendered Muslim employee! Oh, and on Friday we will proceed with our plan to let go all workers, appreciated employees no exception. Be aware that out policy is to not provide references. However, we are sure you will all find other jobs. Be sure to recommend our company to all your friends who need our services!"
Company B says, "We are committed to not laying anyone off, and will even keep hiring. We have no idea at this time how we're going to manage that, but, uh, that's the idea, anyway. Further good news: our new CEO has been released on bail (after sexually assaulting every exhibit at the local zoo, but never mind that, it was all a misunderstanding), so he'll be at the helm to make all this a reality!"
Which message, as an employee, would you rather hear? Company A is being honest, and is at least throwing a bone to someone, but it states openly that it's doing things that are bad for everyone. Company B is almost certainly worse in actuality, but they're selling the message that people want to hear. That's how you win elections.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's telling you that when you tell a white guy with 3 kids that just lost his job and he's going to be homeless with his kids in CPS that he's "privileged" to be white and male you are catapulting him into the republican polls.Has anyone in this thread said poor white people don't have very difficult lives? Has anyone said that working class white people are doing hunky dory? No.
Let me state it outright. Your hypothetical white dude, unexpectedly unemployed and with 3 kids, has it f!cking hard. But you can't credibly tell me that your hypothetical dad wouldn't most likely have a harder time turning his circumstances around if he was also a black man. Or Middle Eastern-looking. Or openly gay. Or openly transgender. It ain't zero sum. It ain't the Oppression Olympics. Recognizing hypothetical poor black dude very likely hasn't had the same opportunities in America as hypothetical poor white dude isn't any kind of insult to poor white dude. It sucks horribly to be poor, especially when trapped in generational poverty, regardless of your skin color. No one in this thread disputes that.
We can all agree that poverty sucks, and sucks more if you are a minority. But, that doesn't change the fact that humans are loss-averse by nature. We are irrational. When you frame the conversation around "privilege" that the majority must lose or give up to achieve equality, you are setting yourself against deep mental heuristics.
If progressives would apply all those psych principles we spent so much studying and what we now know about the mind, we could reframe the discussion in terms of the minority "handicap" instead. Something rich, white golfers can understand immediately, and poor, white Americans are less likely to resist.
Messaging matters. You can share all the same facts in two different ways and get wildly different responses.
Trump won because Clinton was a bad candidate. That is why analyzing him will not work.
Any future candidate is going to face off against Trump. Knowing and understanding why he won, what were his strengths and weaknesses, and different ways to beat him will be far more useful than hypotheticals that change the outcome of the previous election.And...
And which of these two is more likely to be in the 2020 race?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We can all agree that poverty sucks, and sucks more if you are a minority. But, that doesn't change the fact that humans are loss-averse by nature. We are irrational. When you frame the conversation around "privilege" that the majority must lose or give up to achieve equality, you are setting yourself against deep mental heuristics.
If progressives would apply all those psych principles we spent so much studying and what we now know about the mind, we could reframe the discussion in terms of the minority "handicap" instead. Something rich, white golfers can understand immediately, and poor, white Americans are less likely to resist.
Messaging matters. You can share all the same facts in two different ways and get wildly different responses.
It looks like the original post is now gone, but I've deliberately never used "privilege/privileged" because of that negative reaction. I had been trying to come at from the other side using "disadvantaged", but that will likely be provocative too. "Handicap" will likely be the same.
I am at a loss for describing or even acknowledging the basic inequities built into the system without pissing off those who don't face those same challenges. And we can't attempt to fix a problem if we can't even discuss it.
|
|
We can all agree that poverty sucks, and sucks more if you are a minority. But, that doesn't change the fact that humans are loss-averse by nature. We are irrational. When you frame the conversation around "privilege" that the majority must lose or give up to achieve equality, you are setting yourself against deep mental heuristics.
If progressives would apply all those psych principles we spent so much studying and what we now know about the mind, we could reframe the discussion in terms of the minority "handicap" instead. Something rich, white golfers can understand immediately, and poor, white Americans are less likely to resist.
Messaging matters. You can share all the same facts in two different ways and get wildly different responses.
It looks like the original post is now gone, but I've deliberately never used "privilege/privileged" because of that negative reaction. I had been trying to come at from the other side using "disadvantaged", but that will likely be provocative too. "Handicap" will likely be the same.
I am at a loss for describing or even acknowledging the basic inequities built into the system without pissing off those who don't face those same challenges. And we can't attempt to fix a problem if we can't even discuss it.
You did use "non-disadvantaged," but that is not the primary messaging coming from the left. You also accused the "non-disadvantaged" of tone/language policing. BigNorseWolf and I are arguing that it isn't their fault. It's just science that the predominant language of the progressive movement isn't likely to be effective.
It's a lot harder to be offended by a term applied to the other guy. Stick with "disadvantaged" or some version of "handicap" and you might still get somewhere. Is it worth offending a minority to move the needle toward equality?
You did use "non-disadvantaged," but that is not the primary messaging coming from the left. You also accused the "non-disadvantaged" of tone/language policing. BigNorseWolf and I are arguing that it isn't their fault. It's just science that the predominant language of the progressive movement isn't likely to be effective.
It's a lot harder to be offended by a term applied to the other guy. Stick with "disadvantaged" or some version of "handicap" and you might still get somewhere. Is it worth offending a minority to move the needle toward equality?
OK, so if a person is affected by a certain discrimination or inequality, the term "disadvantaged" seems workable for you. So, how do I describe everyone else? "Non-affected"?
Marketing.In my bubble, both of those are exceeded in number by people who want jobs.So they voted for the party that when it was last in power produced the worst job losses since the Great Depression and against the party that had just provided the longest streak of continuous job growth ever recorded.
How can anyone not see the flaw in this plan?
It's important to remember that Clinton had a primary opponent up until the debate. I honestly believe that, had Clinton been running unopposed from the time Trump was, the battle ground states where Trump won by narrow margins would have been far more embattled. (I mean embattled in the best way possible here.)
I think it's overly simplistic to say that Sanders cost Clinton the election, but I think it's completely unrealistic to believe that a third party candidate who changed party affiliation for the length of the Democratic primary and then switched back would have sailed to victory.
I've said earlier in this thread that we have to stop selling ourselves as the party of diversity and inclusion and operating under the assumption that people will vote for our candidates just because we're pure of heart. I hope no one took that to mean I think we should be less inclusive or diverse; what I meant was, during the the last election, Trump completely took ownership of the border wall, when we should have had Democrats pointing out that there are already 500 miles of border wall constructed, so why don't go take your seat back at the kiddie table while the grown-ups are talking you f**king child? So, yeah, marketing.
Um, too much?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, they say that a rising tide lifts all boats. If the Democrats focus on the ways their party can help everyone - ideally in a truly tangible way, not just in moral superiority - I suspect things will go better for them.
Or, in other words, "It's the economy".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...what I meant was, during the the last election, Trump completely took ownership of the border wall, when we should have had Democrats pointing out that there are already 500 miles of border wall constructed, so why don't go take your seat back at the kiddie table while the grown-ups are talking you f**king child? So, yeah, marketing.
Or the implication that refugees from Syria practically waltz in to the U.S. It was already taking 18-24 months of rigorous thorough vetting. But the Dems practically let Trump have that talking point without a fight.
Can't win hearts and minds to your candidates if you don't fight hard to control, or at least shape, the narrative.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course, there was also that moment a week before the election when FBI Director Comey just popped in to let everyone know that Anthony Weiner, Democratic Party Perv Par Excellence might have sort of pervy pictures on a computer they hadn't bother to check for top secret emails that Clinton was not criminally negligent with, JUST SAYIN'.
That felt less like marketing than full on malfeasance.
Oh dear, I've started ranting again.
|
|
OK, so if a person is affected by a certain discrimination or inequality, the term "disadvantaged" seems workable for you. So, how do I describe everyone else? "Non-affected"?You did use "non-disadvantaged," but that is not the primary messaging coming from the left. You also accused the "non-disadvantaged" of tone/language policing. BigNorseWolf and I are arguing that it isn't their fault. It's just science that the predominant language of the progressive movement isn't likely to be effective.
It's a lot harder to be offended by a term applied to the other guy. Stick with "disadvantaged" or some version of "handicap" and you might still get somewhere. Is it worth offending a minority to move the needle toward equality?
You were doing fine. Why do you need my approval of your language choices?
If you have serious sway with the larger progressive movement/Tumblr, you could push for "People who don't face these structural disadvantages", but I doubt it will really catch on.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
We can all agree that poverty sucks, and sucks more if you are a minority. But, that doesn't change the fact that humans are loss-averse by nature. We are irrational. When you frame the conversation around "privilege" that the majority must lose or give up to achieve equality, you are setting yourself against deep mental heuristics.
If progressives would apply all those psych principles we spent so much studying and what we now know about the mind, we could reframe the discussion in terms of the minority "handicap" instead. Something rich, white golfers can understand immediately, and poor, white Americans are less likely to resist.
Messaging matters. You can share all the same facts in two different ways and get wildly different responses.
It looks like the original post is now gone, but I've deliberately never used "privilege/privileged" because of that negative reaction. I had been trying to come at from the other side using "disadvantaged", but that will likely be provocative too. "Handicap" will likely be the same.
I am at a loss for describing or even acknowledging the basic inequities built into the system without pissing off those who don't face those same challenges. And we can't attempt to fix a problem if we can't even discuss it.
For what it is worth, BNW has said on more than one occasion (including in this thread) that it is the specific term "privilege" that draws his ire. And he even suggests "discriminated" would be more approachable.
The problem that I see is that "privilege" in the academic social equity sense has far different connotations from its use in common english. "Privilege" evokes wealth and leisurely lifestyle in common english. When academics tell the out-of-work divorcee with a back injury, no health insurance, no car insurance, child support arrears, and a landlord itching to boot him out of his home every 30 days that he is "privileged" it meets with a rightful, "F-you buddy." It also doesn't help that affluent college students / while collar workers tell him to, "check his privilege," and seem to actually mean it in the common english sense.
Essentially, beyond academia it is a non-starter term. But it is going to be difficult to get that guy on board with any social change that doesn't include him. When you need to be at (completely made up for demonstration purposes ==>) "Level 30" to be stable in life with room to breathe, the difference between level 10 and level 5 is moot. Yeah, he is sitting 5 levels ahead of the other person but that is still a far cry away from "privilege," and the academic sitting comfortably at level 50 telling him how "not being beaten by the police" is a "privilege" isn't helping to sell it.
At any rate; I don't think BNW (or myself for that matter) disagree with any of your positions on this matter. Me in particular, I don't have any issue with using "privilege," but I DO understand why so many people push back against it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We can all agree that poverty sucks, and sucks more if you are a minority. But, that doesn't change the fact that humans are loss-averse by nature. We are irrational. When you frame the conversation around "privilege" that the majority must lose or give up to achieve equality, you are setting yourself against deep mental heuristics.
If progressives would apply all those psych principles we spent so much studying and what we now know about the mind, we could reframe the discussion in terms of the minority "handicap" instead. Something rich, white golfers can understand immediately, and poor, white Americans are less likely to resist.
Messaging matters. You can share all the same facts in two different ways and get wildly different responses.
It looks like the original post is now gone, but I've deliberately never used "privilege/privileged" because of that negative reaction. I had been trying to come at from the other side using "disadvantaged", but that will likely be provocative too. "Handicap" will likely be the same.
I am at a loss for describing or even acknowledging the basic inequities built into the system without pissing off those who don't face those same challenges. And we can't attempt to fix a problem if we can't even discuss it.
Maybe by shifting the blame for those inequalities a little.
Play like it's not the cis-white hetero male whose responsible for systematic racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamphobia and overall being a unfair domineering force in society but the generic Rich whose responsible for every bad thing in American history! Make it so poor white boys can paint themselves as equal victims of oppression (which they really seem to love to do recently anyway) and manipulation by the rich. That why they might lose their knee-jerk rejection to be called out as being part of the problem.
It's not strictly true of the reality of the world but feeding class struggle could bring about a needed surge in collectivism between rural whites and more diverse urban populations. Plus, if Trump has taught us anything its that finger pointing wins elections.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, some people become alarmingly offended when a label is applied to them (while they think themselves fine as "normal"). Just ask about cis-gender.
Oh yes. The total unwillingness of Democrats (or our worthless 'news' media) to call rightwingers on their 'alternative facts' is one of our biggest problems. (And not just a political problem, a BASIC SANITY problem at this point.)Or the implication that refugees from Syria practically waltz in to the U.S. It was already taking 18-24 months of rigorous thorough vetting. But the Dems practically let Trump have that talking point without a fight.
Can't win hearts and minds to your candidates if you don't fight hard to control, or at least shape, the narrative.
There's no point in doing so. The base that supports Trump proved time and time again that they won't listen to "facts" coming from sources they despise. Which is everyone save Trump, BriteBart, and FOXX.
Also, some people become alarmingly offended when a label is applied to them (while they think themselves fine as "normal"). Just ask about cis-gender.
Do you think there is any relation to it being such a clunky term? I mean trans-gender is also pretty clunky. When my dad transitioned in 2006 she had been living as a woman for about 7 years, but when she got the surgery it was still called, "sex reassignment surgery."
Now I believe the preferred term is "gender confirmation surgery." (EDIT: I realize that I was unclear that I meant this as indicative of a change in how we think about these topics, and that changing the name of the surgery is representative of a turning point in our thinking as a culture) Which kind of leaves "trans-gender" and "cis-gender" in an awkward place. I don't know that the terms actually do a good job of encapsulating what they are trying to get across.
Compare this to "hetrosexual" which I have never heard a heterosexual complain about being called / labeled.
Also, some people become alarmingly offended when a label is applied to them (while they think themselves fine as "normal"). Just ask about cis-gender.
Really? Even being called cis-gender is bad now. People call me a Cissy all the time and I'm cool with it.
Americans sure are weird about their labels, eh.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Has anyone in this thread said poor white people don't have very difficult lives? Has anyone said that working class white people are doing hunky dory? No.
Yes. You. When you tell him he has privilege. When you tell him he has unearned advantages over everyone else, because that is what the word privilege means to anyone not in social justice circles.
But you can't credibly tell me that your hypothetical dad wouldn't most likely have a harder time turning his circumstances around if he was also a black man. Or Middle Eastern-looking. Or openly gay. Or openly transgender. It ain't zero sum
At a certain level of (#$#$Ied you can say that. Whether it's true or not probably varies a lot regionally.
There's the not completely unfounded attitude that its easier to apply for social services if you're a minority. When you go to social service as a cis white male with a job history the attitude from the social workers is -hey you're privileged what the hell are you doing here, why do you need help, how badly did you screw up?-.
More people are at or near that level of (#$#$Ied lately. More people are going to be at or near that level of (#$#$Ied the next time you need their vote. Don't call them privileged. They're not. They (#$#$Ied To you those aren't mutually exclusive. To them they are.
It ain't the Oppression Olympics.
That seems to be how the far left keeps score to decide who's points have validity.
without immediate attempts by the non-disadvantaged to shut the topic down by policing language and dismissing their specific examples.And look what you just did. You're non disadvantaged nothing you say matters. You are trying to sway people but you're telling them that they're blind and pointless... You do not see who has it the worst and then that person is right: ideas stand or fall based on their own merit not who's saying them.
I didn't say that.
Yes. You said that.
Yes, you did that.Yes, you are determining the validity of what I'm saying on on the oppression olympics. you're dismissing what i said and not making counter points or showing evidence.
Or when he speaks up, other people immediately shut him down complaining about their arthritis or lack of shoes?
I do not understand this concept that someone is getting talked over or shut down in either a text medium or a timed speaker event. One person writing doesn't exclude anyone else from writing or talking.
Buy that last guy shoes and put in a ramp. The government is not where you go for a shoulder to cry on it's where you go to get stuff done. Buy the first guy Shoes, tell the store owners accesability laws are a thing, put in a motion sensor activated door and a ramp. Maybe ask the guy we got shoes for to come by and help pour concrete if they can. get it done.
Labels are... interesting, yes. And it's true that some people absolutely hate them, to the point they will actively hurt other people rather than accept one. (This happened within my own family, so I've seen the results firsthand.)
@thejeff: I definitely think the Democrats need to do a better job of messaging. They can't just say that their ideas are better and assume that everyone who hears will agree - they need to communicate on various levels and focus on how the things they're doing will help the people who support them. Get their faces on TV more. Do some magazine appearances. Send letters to people's homes detailing their plans. Do something to help control the narrative better.
@Scythia: As a cissexual individual, I don't personally mind being called that. That said, in many cases, it seems to be used as part of a derogatory term... which may explain at least some of why certain people don't like being referred to in that way.
But... that's only a single prong.
The other prongs exist for the express purpose of supporting this prong. Social disparity exists in no small part from deliberate efforts to have an underclass for the white middle class to look down on and vote against.
This prong is the only one you're going to get government action on.
Moving that prong moves all of the other ones.
Moving that prong is the only one the well meaning behemoth of government can handle without screwing up.
You can't begin to achieve true equality and justice by tackling only the economics.
We are not achieving a mythical ideal of true equality in the lifetime of anyone reading this (unless my plans with the anti freeze, iv, and shipping myself to a cold spot in Antarctica pan out...)
We are not achieving that ideal through government action. The government does not have, and should not have, the power to prevent people from speaking or from using old tropes and stereotypes.
Attitudes change over generations when people with old ideas die. Until that happens you're mitigating damage.
You have to go after discrimination against LGBT folk. This isn't accomplished by holding the majority down; it's done by raising the dis-advantaged up. Strong, sane laws with real teeth and civilian oversight are needed to push for non-discrimination in access to: job opportunities, loan opportunities, affordable housing, good public schools, quality preventative healthcare and treatment, legal services, child adoption, and more.
Most of that is in place already, you should be able to expand it to the LGBT population with little legal difficulty. But you need a substantial majority of congress for that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, they say that a rising tide lifts all boats. If the Democrats focus on the ways their party can help everyone - ideally in a truly tangible way, not just in moral superiority - I suspect things will go better for them.
Or, in other words, "It's the economy".
Okay, so if Democrats ignore minorities, focus on white people economic issues, they'll win elections?
A black woman is typically paid 65 cents on the dollar for what a white man earns on the same job. So, if everyone sees a 10% increase, she now makes 71.5 cents to his $1.10. If your argument is that this is okay, it's basically just a much more polite version of "Hey, be glad we brought you over from Africa, you have running water now. You're welcome."
If you think that the pay disparity isn't okay, then you are disagreeing with the statement you just made that I quoted.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most of what's in place is not working for blacks or other minorities either.
Nor is it working for poor whites. It's working for Wall Street CEOs, and that's it.
Fixing the problems of straight white men doesn't actually fix everyone else's problems.
Wealth redistribution would not benefit anyone except straight white males? At all? Really?
I totally agree it won't fix racism, but that's a separate problem. Putting food on the tables of working families -- black and white and every other color and description -- doesn't magically only affect white males. It might benefit them disproportionately, given the discrimination that unfortunately still exists -- and I think that's a valid issue -- but minorities losing their livelihoods and savings in the wake of bailouts and downsizings would still benefit. And yes, we desperately need to work on the discrimination, too -- but not to the exclusion of the economy.
It's not zero-sum. You have one issue (economics) that can potentially benefit 99.99% of the population. And you have another issue (bathroom bills, for example), that certainly can benefit 0.3% of the population.
And the Democrats over the last several decades, from slick Willy on, have based their economic policies on massively expanding the populations of for-profit prisons, continuing the Republicans' ruinous foreign wars, and making sure the Wall Street bailouts continue at the expense of everyone else. (The one exception was affordable health care, which was at least a nod in the right direction.)
What do people think about the Brookings Institute's claim that the best way for anyone to move out of poverty is: at least finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children.
Too simplistic? More "pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps" b.s.? Some truth in it?
What do people think about the Brookings Institute's claim that the best way for anyone to move out of poverty is: at least finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children.
Too simplistic? More "pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps" b.s.? Some truth in it?
It's specifically the people in poverty who usually can't finish high school, because they're working two jobs just to help feed their parent(s) and younger siblings.
If you want bootstrapping to work, everyone needs at least a pair of boots to start with.
What does the idea of "white privilege" mean in regards to someone living in a small town that has a population that is 100% white? In that setting they have no structural advantage over anyone else in the town based on their "whiteness" (of course there are all kinds of other privileges that different people benefit from at different times).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What do people think about the Brookings Institute's claim that the best way for anyone to move out of poverty is: at least finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children.
Too simplistic? More "pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps" b.s.? Some truth in it?
I think this is a great example of actually privileged individuals being completely ignorant about the actual reality of real human beings in the world.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
What does the idea of "white privilege" mean in regards to someone living in a small town that has a population that is 100% white? In that setting they have no structural advantage over anyone else in the town based on their "whiteness" (of course there are all kinds of other privileges that different people benefit from at different times).
Well for one, that town isn't likely to have lead in the water.
What does the idea of "white privilege" mean in regards to someone living in a small town that has a population that is 100% white? In that setting they have no structural advantage over anyone else in the town based on their "whiteness" (of course there are all kinds of other privileges that different people benefit from at different times).Well for one, that town isn't likely to have lead in the water.
It also isn't likely to have Mount Fuji nearby either. You are comparing other locations to this location. I am saying within the context of this particular location, does this idea of "white privilege" have any meaning?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A black woman is typically paid 65 cents on the dollar for what a white man earns on the same job. So, if everyone sees a 10% increase, she now makes 71.5 cents to his $1.10. If your argument is that this is okay, it's basically just a much more polite version of "Hey, be glad we brought you over from Africa, you have running water now. You're welcome."
I don't think the argument is that's it's OK. I think the argument is that "71.5 vs. 1.10 isn't okay, but 65 vs. 71.5 was a pretty big step up and still helped that family a lot, and now we really need get it to the full 1.10."
The Democratic platform, on the other hand, is "71.5 vs. 1.10 isn't OK, so let's help our corporate masters reduce everyone to 55 and tell them we're solving all the real problems."
What do people think about the Brookings Institute's claim that the best way for anyone to move out of poverty is: at least finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children.
Too simplistic? More "pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps" b.s.? Some truth in it?
It's specifically the people in poverty who usually can't finish high school, because they're working two jobs just to help feed their parent(s) and younger siblings.
If you want bootstrapping to work, everyone needs at least a pair of boots to start with.
I am willing to say that is certainly a possibility, I have my doubts that it is the primary situation for most poor teens. I think it might be more likely that poor teens are actually under-employed relative to middle-class teens. Lack of available jobs in their local community, lack of transportation resources to get to where the jobs are, lack of willingness of employers to hire them, etc.
EDIT: While this data is based on race and gender and not socioeconomic status, we know that African-american and Latinos are disproportionately poor. This shows for 16-17 year olds, they are also disproportionately unemployed.
Most of what's in place is not working for blacks or other minorities either. Fixing the problems of straight white men doesn't actually fix everyone else's problems. It never has. We don't fix racism and prejudice just by improving the economy. We don't even fix the economic consequences of racism and prejudice that way.
Look at the list I gave.
Without even mentioning race once everything on there disproportionately helps minorities, who more disproportionatelyget excluded from voting, cant take time off to vote, suffer long voting lines, have no time to be with their families because they need to work two jobs, don't have the money for an education, can't contribute money for politicians to pay attention to them etc.
We're barely starting to figure out how intertwined and often unconscious these things are. But they're still real, not just special snowflakes complaining about being called names.
And what do you propose the government does about peoples thoughts? Thetan testing? try to figure out the average level of racism and then counteract it with bonuses and HOPE that doesn't come with a pushback? (hint, its going to come with a pushback)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What does the idea of "white privilege" mean in regards to someone living in a small town that has a population that is 100% white? In that setting they have no structural advantage over anyone else in the town based on their "whiteness" (of course there are all kinds of other privileges that different people benefit from at different times).
It means the cop doesn't know who he can or can beat up because the janitors son looks a lot like the lawyers.
It means a business applying for a loan with that zip code is more likely to be approved
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that Democrats haven't been great on the economic front in the last decades, though I don't think it's as bad as you do. They've still vastly outperformed Republicans.
That's like the Son of Sam saying, "well, I didn't kill nearly as many people as Ted Bundy!"
When enough people get desperate enough, "not as bad" still isn't good enough. At least Bernie, as crazy and unelectable an old coot as any we've recently seen, understood this much. Trump got it -- we know he won't fix it in reality (and will in fact make it a lot worse), but at least addressing it head-on was enough to get him elected.