|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » The Wall Street Occupation

Default The Wall Street Occupation

October 5th, 2011, 19:28
Originally Posted by Thrasher View Post
When you say "you guys" and "your venom" who are you referring to?
That's kind of a loaded question since I either spend the next 12 hours detailing out each and every applicable faction or get crucified for broad-brush labels. I think we all "know one when we see one" in this case, but I'll at least make an effort.

In general, it's safe to call it a leftie movement. More specifically, "you guys" would be the subset of lefties that seem to currently be blaming most of the world's problems on the wealthy and on the banks, but even that's a rather coarse filter.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: *sigh* / / Detroit Red Wings: Took injuries to see them, but how about them youngsters!
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#61

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,256

Default 

October 5th, 2011, 19:36
Originally Posted by blatantninja View Post
Silly Thrasher. There was never any hope! (See my comments going back to 2008)
Except your comments were focused on the dreaded debt, which were dead wrong.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#62

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,850

Default 

October 5th, 2011, 19:41
Originally Posted by zahratustra View Post
Western World is changing bn. There was a time when job was for life and there was a time when college education led (in majority of the cases) to worthwhile employment. But now more and more college graduates are forced to take jobs below their skill level and more of them have hard time finding any employment at all.
It's one thing to pay off your student's loans when your salary is reasonable and quite another to when you are underemployed or unemployed.
It think that really comes down to a problem with degree dilution. We've become convinced that we have to have a bachelor's degree to just get even a decent job and with costs of those degrees increasing (in part, though not wholy, due to the massive increase in colleges and universities) its a recipe for disaster.

Graduate degrees are suffering the same fate. When I started looking at MBA programs, there were 2 MBA programs in Dallas - UT Dallas and SMU. If you went farther out, you picked up a couple other programs at UNT and UT Arlington. And out of the four, SMU was really the only decent program.

Now in Dallas there are UT Dallas, SMU, UT - Austin (DFW campus), U of Dallas, Dallas Baptist, a University of Phoenix branch, Baylor - Dallas Campus (Baylor is 2 hours south in Waco), and two others that I can't think the name of.

Does the world need that many MBA's? No, but people are spending boatloads of money on these degrees. When I worked in Dallas, I routinely interviewed people with degrees from those programs and outside of maybe a third the people coming from UT - Dallas, UT - Austin (DFW) and SMU, I couldn't believe that these people held MBA degrees. They paid a lot of money to essentially diploma mills.

I once briefly dated a girl that had $140k in student loans. She just HAD to go to a Christian school (Baylor, a private school at about $25k a year in tuition) and then went on to get a masters at another Christian school, Dallas Baptist.

To do what? To be a school counselor. Making around $35k a year. She didn't need a private education for that. She didn't need a masters either, and if she decided to get one, she didn't need to get one at a private university that cost 4x as much. And she complained non-stop about how much her student loans were costing her.

It's a combination of brain washing and plain stupidity that has lead us to this spot.


As for Wall Street "zombies"…. I thought it was part of an old American tradition? Original Tea Partyers dressed up as "Indians", modern Tea Partyers wearing War of Independence costumes, racists dressed as "Ghosts of Christmas Past" and Ivy League president dressed up in Stetson and cowboy boots. Zombies fit right in!

That's a good point! Of course outside the original Tea Partyers, I'm pretty much ok with rounding up all of those people and deporting them!

————————————————-

"Ya'll can go to HELL! I'm-a-goin' to TEXAS!"

- Davy Crockett
blatantninja is offline

blatantninja

blatantninja's Avatar
Resident Redneck Facist

#63

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 4,020

Default 

October 5th, 2011, 19:42
Originally Posted by Thrasher View Post
Except your comments were focused on the dreaded debt, which were dead wrong.
Not exactly. The dreaded debt is as dreaded as it is because of the economic slow down! It's all interconnected as you know!

————————————————-

"Ya'll can go to HELL! I'm-a-goin' to TEXAS!"

- Davy Crockett
blatantninja is offline

blatantninja

blatantninja's Avatar
Resident Redneck Facist

#64

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 4,020

Default 

October 5th, 2011, 19:54
Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
In general, it's safe to call it a leftie movement. More specifically, "you guys" would be the subset of lefties that seem to currently be blaming most of the world's problems on the wealthy and on the banks, but even that's a rather coarse filter.
Since your appear to position yourself slightly to the right of the Genghis Khan, that's a LOT of lefties dte!











PS No, I am not being completely serious…
zahratustra is offline

zahratustra

SasqWatch

#65

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,223

Default 

October 5th, 2011, 20:14
Example of your ex girlfriend was extreme bn but I have no problem accepting your concept of "degree dilution". Trouble is that acting according to perceptions rather than reality have real consequences.
zahratustra is offline

zahratustra

SasqWatch

#66

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,223

Default 

October 5th, 2011, 20:44
Originally Posted by blatantninja View Post
The over dramaticism of changing a line in their 'declaration'.
The zombie crap, which just makes people laugh not actually listen to their arguments.
The fact that they really have no coherent demands (which is probably the number one thing outside of size that separates them from the Arab Spring protests).
The referring to people as 'it' until they let you know which pronoun they prefer because gender is a 'social construct'?
I can see why you find their lack of focus worrying. But painting up what they're doing as silly because they're not doing what you'd do strikes me as rather close minded (especially since I just can't see what's silly about doing away with genders or making an effort not to disregard groups we are normally inclined to no be really sceptical about). There's young pepole getting together trying to change things to the better. When did that last happen in the US at a scale similiar to this? They have spirit, and when did you last see youths with spirit? If you manage to direct their eyes from the sky onto America you might start to see genuine improvement in America again (political and social).

And the whole "changing the line" thing made me think of the hippies. Rather spiritual and arty, and therefore easily dismissable (especially since I'm not that kind of guy, and I doubt you are either - we don't think like that, we don't express ourself in that manner, we don't use those tropes in our speak etc). But the hippies didn't just do acid, they accomplished things as well. Mostly social, which doesn't bode well for the whole "stop Wall Street from destroying the country" thing, but (in my own narrow experience) social change has kind of stagnated in the states anyway. And getting them to focus on the political system shouldn't be impossible either.

Originally Posted by blatantninja View Post
It think that really comes down to a problem with degree dilution. We've become convinced that we have to have a bachelor's degree to just get even a decent job and with costs of those degrees increasing (in part, though not wholy, due to the massive increase in colleges and universities) its a recipe for disaster.
Erm… doesn't the price usually go down when the supply increases?

Originally Posted by blatantninja View Post
But I'm not crying about spending the $90k or making my payments on the debt. That was the price to get the job I wanted, and I did the math and determined that going to grad school would pay off. If it doesn't pay off DON'T DO IT! It really grinds me whenever people think they are entitled to something that the rest of us have to work for
Why is there such a huge amount of Americans who don't know how American society works anyway? I find that to be a more interesting topic than being mad of pepole not knowing what you (in all your middle classness) know.

(Also, provided you can live off of $400 a month (two summer months not counted for) you don't have to borrow a single cent to study in Sweden. There's one company that provides student loans, and since it's the same company that provides those $400 everyone's aware of the possibility to loan.)

Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
I think you'll have a hard time selling the systemic changes you want. Basically, your opening line is, "The American Dream is dead." That's the only way to justify there's a need to overhaul what's essentially a culture. It's entirely possible that you're right, but that's a deeply ingrained philosophy you're pissing on.
Well, it's kind of dying. Look at what's happening to the middle class (<-great lecture, see it if you have the time). Just glance at the lower class and their problems. Look at your social mobility.

That's ignoring the whole "everyone has what it takes to make it if we just leave them to it", which is the basis for the American Dream.

Übereil, who thinks it would be real swell if you could resize the post window so you don't have to scroll so damn much when you've written a long post

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.

H. L. Mencken

The Chaos Cascade
Ubereil is offline

Ubereil

Ubereil's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#67

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,263

Default 

October 5th, 2011, 21:01
Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
That's kind of a loaded question since I either spend the next 12 hours detailing out each and every applicable faction or get crucified for broad-brush labels. I think we all "know one when we see one" in this case, but I'll at least make an effort.

In general, it's safe to call it a leftie movement. More specifically, "you guys" would be the subset of lefties that seem to currently be blaming most of the world's problems on the wealthy and on the banks, but even that's a rather coarse filter.
No. I am blaming the problems on bad conservative supply side economics policies, promulgated by the right. The protesters are just targeting the so called "winners" that benefited from the policies.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#68

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,850

Default 

October 5th, 2011, 21:08
Originally Posted by zahratustra View Post
Since your appear to position yourself slightly to the right of the Genghis Khan, that's a LOT of lefties dte!











PS No, I am not being completely serious…
Say what you will about the man, Kahn knew what he was doing!

————————————————-

"Ya'll can go to HELL! I'm-a-goin' to TEXAS!"

- Davy Crockett
blatantninja is offline

blatantninja

blatantninja's Avatar
Resident Redneck Facist

#69

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 4,020

Default 

October 5th, 2011, 21:15
Originally Posted by blatantninja View Post
Say what you will about the man, Kahn knew what he was doing!
So did Hitler. Pepole forget that he did things like getting Germany out of a depression and building the world's first major highway network.

Übereil, he was still an asshole though, and we're getting off topic

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.

H. L. Mencken

The Chaos Cascade
Ubereil is offline

Ubereil

Ubereil's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#70

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,263

Default 

October 5th, 2011, 21:20
Originally Posted by Ubereil View Post
So did Hitler. Pepole forget that he did things like getting Germany out of a depression and building the world's first major highway network.

Übereil, he was stll an asshole though, and we're getting off topic
I think it was the democrats before hitler who did all that. Hitler just took the credit for it. Also if adolf hadnt started the war his economy would have slowed down. Also during most the war the whole nazi war production was poorly run even though they had industry of entire europe and slave labour.

Nazies didnt invent new policies that made things like autobahn….they just continued the ones left by previous government:
At first, Schacht continued the economic policies introduced by the government of Kurt von Schleicher in 1932 to combat the effects of the Great Depression. These policies were mostly Keynesian, relying on large public works programs supported by deficit spending — such as the construction of the Autobahn network — to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment.
Before the war adolf was running his country into debt:
he spending rate of Hitler was far greater than the growth of the economy. In 1934 Hjalmar Schacht, the Reich Minister of Economics, introduced the Mefo bills, allowing Hitler to spend money on rearming without giving the big businesses money, therefore gradually getting Germany into more and more debt.

Between 1933 and 1939, the total revenue was 62 billion marks whereas expenditure (at times made up to 60 % by rearmament costs) exceeded 101 billion, thus creating a huge deficit and national debt (reaching 38 billion mark in 1939) coinciding with the Kristallnacht and intensified persecutions of Jews and the break-out of the war.
Zakhal who reads much war history

“I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.” - Maya Angelou
"Those who dont read history are destined to repeat it."– Edmund Burke
Last edited by zakhal; October 5th, 2011 at 21:32.
zakhal is offline

zakhal

zakhal's Avatar
HomelyRebel

#71

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Europa Universalis
Posts: 2,968

Default 

October 5th, 2011, 21:33
Originally Posted by Ubereil View Post
But painting up what they're doing as silly because they're not doing what you'd do strikes me as rather close minded (especially since I just can't see what's silly about doing away with genders or making an effort not to disregard groups we are normally inclined to no be really sceptical about).
Look, I'm all for being open minded, but referring to a person as 'she' or 'he' is not enforcing some tyranny on them, its proper grammar matter of biology. As for making an effort not to disregard certain groups, I think you misunderstand. I have no problem with inclusions. I'm all for it, but saying I have to stand at the back of line because I'm a white male to atone for societies prior sins is ridiculous. As far as I'm concerned is simply is trying to oppress the (former) oppressors. It used to be that people shouted for equality, now its that they want to enjoy the benefits that they found so abhorrent when others had them.

There's young pepole getting together trying to change things to the better. When did that last happen in the US at a scale similiar to this? They have spirit, and when did you last see youths with spirit? If you manage to direct their eyes from the sky onto America you might start to see genuine improvement in America again (political and social).
I'm all for social movement and fixing our problems, but if these type of people are the ones that get in charge, we'd be worse off than we started.

[quote]And the whole "changing the line" thing made me think of the hippies. Rather spiritual and arty, and therefore easily dismissable (especially since I'm not that kind of guy, and I doubt you are either - we don't think like that, we don't express ourself in that manner, we don't use those tropes in our speak etc). But the hippies didn't just do acid, they accomplished things as well. Mostly social, which doesn't bode well for the whole "stop Wall Street from destroying the country" thing, but (in my own narrow experience) social change has kind of stagnated in the states anyway. And getting them to focus on the political system shouldn't be impossible either.[/qujote]

I think the problem is that these people think of themselves as hippies, yet the (older now) hippies I know (and due to my school affiliation I know more than a few) just shake their head at them.

Erm… doesn't the price usually go down when the supply increases?
Yes, but it's not a simple 'there are more degree programs and the same number of students.'

1) As a percentage of the population, more people than ever are going to some kind of college or university. That in and of itself is not necessarily bad, but when you have people going to school, spending large sums of money and getting into significant debt for degrees that ultimately have no real economic value to them, it becomes a problem.

Add in the huge influx of graduate programs, and the problem is even worse. What percentage of people had an MBA 20 or 30 years ago vs now? But are they really producing any more economic value? When I started MBA school, getting an MBA was a fairly prestigious thing still, and for my position, I use what learned daily (that's compounded though because my undergrad is in Journalism, which I do use some of the skills, but not as many). Now, I have literally met managers at fast food restaurants, not franchisers, that hold MBA's from some of these lesser programs. Are they really doing a better job managing a Taco Bell due to $45k worth of MBA classes?

So back on tract, the total population of students has increased, which is driven by this concept that you have to have a degree to get a decent job.

2) The competition for top professors is through the roof. I sit on one of the advisory boards for the University of Texas at Austin so I get to see a lot of this first hand. Competition is fierce for top quality professors. We actually have a special donors fund that the President of the University can use, among other things, to spend whatever it takes to get a specific prof to come to UT. This is vastly different than things were even 10 years ago.

The number of top quality profs hasn't increased that much, but the number of schools recruiting them has.

3) The other costs associated with running any organization (technology, facilities, health care, etc.) has gone up at a staggering rate as well. As a school, you can't afford to be behind on technology or the education you are providing will suffer.

4) State funding of schools has gone down dramatically. In Texas, this has been a huge problem (and is directly related to the reduction in oil production after the oil bust in the last 80's). So more of the burden is falling on the students (and parents).

Why is there such a huge amount of Americans who don't know how American society works anyway? I find that to be a more interesting topic than being mad of pepole not knowing what you (in all your middle classness) know.
It more comes down to a sense of entitlement in this country that has grown for decades. We could discuss that for years, but it seems to me that it comes from a lot of the attitudes we have fostered in child development (giving everyone the 1st place, blue ribbon at science fairs, not keeping score in sports, banning dodgeball so as to not hurt anyone's feelings).

It's not just the millennials (people that have graduated in the last ten years mostly), but I've heard horror stories of dealing with these people in particular. I've heard them called 'the most praised generation' among other things.

But like I said, its not just them by any means. Its the same reason we have a civil justice system run amok. You can't even just blame the lawyers as behind every lawyer is a client demanding 'its someone else's fault!' (not that all lawsuits are unjustified by any means). I've read that a lot of these actually traces to the 'War on Poverty' that President Johnson kicked off in the 60's. Many people feel that rather than solve poverty, it trapped a lot of people in it and fostered a dependence attitude that has spread throughout society.

(Also, provided you can live off of $400 a month (two summer months not counted for) you don't have to borrow a single cent to study in Sweden. There's one company that provides student loans, and since it's the same company that provides those $400 everyone's aware of the possibility to loan.)
That's pretty nice!

————————————————-

"Ya'll can go to HELL! I'm-a-goin' to TEXAS!"

- Davy Crockett
blatantninja is offline

blatantninja

blatantninja's Avatar
Resident Redneck Facist

#72

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 4,020

Default 

October 5th, 2011, 21:39
Originally Posted by blatantninja View Post
I've read that a lot of these actually traces to the 'War on Poverty' that President Johnson kicked off in the 60's. Many people feel that rather than solve poverty, it trapped a lot of people in it and fostered a dependence attitude that has spread throughout society.
The bullshit the right comes up with like this is amazing. You do realize that poverty levels fell dramatically and have stayed low since welfare and medicare was instituted? But don't let facts get in the way of ideology.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#73

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,850

Default 

October 5th, 2011, 22:00
Originally Posted by Thrasher View Post
The bullshit the right comes up with like this is amazing. You do realize that poverty levels fell dramatically and have stayed low since welfare and medicare was instituted? But don't let facts get in the way of ideology.
I'm not saying that it was a complete failure by any means, but that it contributed to trapping a large portion of people in that state. Medicare has a lot of issues with how it doles out care, but one of the things it definitely has done well is to provide medical coverage for the elderly.

————————————————-

"Ya'll can go to HELL! I'm-a-goin' to TEXAS!"

- Davy Crockett
blatantninja is offline

blatantninja

blatantninja's Avatar
Resident Redneck Facist

#74

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 4,020

Default 

October 5th, 2011, 22:13
What would be worse, getting so-called "trapped" in a state of welfare or dying because of poor healthcare, living conditions, and diet? Based on the latest Republican debates, apparently righties would prefer that these people die, or are at least too wimpy to stand up to the crazies in their party who think so.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#75

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,850

Default 

October 5th, 2011, 22:29
Originally Posted by Thrasher View Post
What would be worse, getting so-called "trapped" in a state of welfare or dying because of poor healthcare, living conditions, and diet? Based on the latest Republican debates, apparently righties would prefer that these people die, or are at least too wimpy to stand up to the crazies in their party who think so.
Well Clinton did a lot to make it such that the support system was still there, but that it didn't foster dependence. It wasn't a complete overhaul, but it was a start.

————————————————-

"Ya'll can go to HELL! I'm-a-goin' to TEXAS!"

- Davy Crockett
blatantninja is offline

blatantninja

blatantninja's Avatar
Resident Redneck Facist

#76

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 4,020

Default 

October 5th, 2011, 23:11
Originally Posted by blatantninja View Post
Look, I'm all for being open minded, but referring to a person as 'she' or 'he' is not enforcing some tyranny on them, its proper grammar matter of biology.
What about someone who is biologically a man but psychologically a woman - is that a man or a woman? What about hermaphrodites - man or woman? What about the division between men and women in the first place - what's really the big, important difference that's so important to distinguish between? Why aren't we making a division like that between blue and brown eyed pepole?

What are the potential problems of referring to men and women with different words? Well, we might promote a division where there is none, thus promoting prejudice and separate treatment where no prejudice or separate treatment is warranted. We might not. But if we stop doing so, instead using one word to referr to both sexes, what do we lose, really?

Originally Posted by blatantninja View Post
As for making an effort not to disregard certain groups, I think you misunderstand. I have no problem with inclusions. I'm all for it, but saying I have to stand at the back of line because I'm a white male to atone for societies prior sins is ridiculous. As far as I'm concerned is simply is trying to oppress the (former) oppressors.
Well, we live in a society whose norms have it's base in old europe. They have their base in a society built to serve white males in particular. A lot has changed, of course, and a lot of improvement has been made regarding equality. But there are still patterns of thoughts alive that keeps white males slightly ahead of the rest. It's easier for them to gain trust, for instance, and it's more natural for them to take room.

With that in mind, how are we to level the field? Because if we do nothing it's going to be the women and blacks (especially the black women) who will have to stand at the back of the subconcious line while the white males subconciously walk ahead of them.

And I didn't intend to imply that you're cool with opressing women/blacks. I don't think that's your problem. The problem instead is that you think that white men are on the same level as non-whites and women, so if we just make the same rules apply to everyone things will be solved. Because of the heteronormativity that just isn't the case, though. The heteronormativity is (pretty much) a set of unwritten rules for how we are to treat other pepole in society, and it has different rules for white men than for others.

And most pepole are unaware of it in the same manner fish are unaware of water - they're living in it and they always have.

Originally Posted by blatantninja View Post
That's pretty nice!
It's one of my favorite thing about Scandinavia: secondary education truly is avaliable to all. And thus we don't have those loads of pepole complaining about how they can't get through college because of their financial situation.

Originally Posted by blatantninja View Post
I'm not saying that it was a complete failure by any means, but that it contributed to trapping a large portion of people in that state. Medicare has a lot of issues with how it doles out care, but one of the things it definitely has done well is to provide medical coverage for the elderly.
I suspect it's because it's financial aid and absolutely nothing else. It doesn't adress why the recipients are in a situation where they need welfare/medicade, and thus won't end up being more than symptom treatment in a lot of cases.

Übereil

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.

H. L. Mencken

The Chaos Cascade
Ubereil is offline

Ubereil

Ubereil's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#77

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,263

Default 

October 7th, 2011, 15:26
Originally Posted by Ubereil View Post
What about someone who is biologically a man but psychologically a woman - is that a man or a woman?
They need help. Seriously though, if someone blatantly dresses up as the opposite sex, fine, i will refer to them as that. To each his own, but if I see aguy wearing a football jersey, jeans and a baseball cap, I'm not going to refer to him as it until he tells me which pronoun he prefers. It's ridiculous.

What about hermaphrodites - man or woman?
That's a fair question, but again, most of them either dress as male or female. And if someone calls them the wrong one, its a simply mistake, not some act of tyranny.

What about the division between men and women in the first place - what's really the big, important difference that's so important to distinguish between? Why aren't we making a division like that between blue and brown eyed pepole?
Because blue and brown eyes is a very minor difference. It's coloring, not a different in body/brain chemistry, sexual organs, etc. The simple fact is men and women ARE different. That's not a bad thing. That's not to say that people should be locked into gender specific roles or something, but we're not just all just asexual entities.

What are the potential problems of referring to men and women with different words? Well, we might promote a division where there is none, thus promoting prejudice and separate treatment where no prejudice or separate treatment is warranted. We might not. But if we stop doing so, instead using one word to referr to both sexes, what do we lose, really?
We lose our identities. Referring to a person as male or female doesn't promote prejudice or separate treatment (at least not prejudicial separate treatment). We make people feel bad simply for being who they are (Stand at the back of the like white male!). It's over sensitivity at its worst.


Well, we live in a society whose norms have it's base in old europe. They have their base in a society built to serve white males in particular. A lot has changed, of course, and a lot of improvement has been made regarding equality. But there are still patterns of thoughts alive that keeps white males slightly ahead of the rest. It's easier for them to gain trust, for instance, and it's more natural for them to take room.

With that in mind, how are we to level the field? Because if we do nothing it's going to be the women and blacks (especially the black women) who will have to stand at the back of the subconcious line while the white males subconciously walk ahead of them.
It's pretty simple. You treat people equally. You don't belittle one group just because historically they ran the show. I'm a white male. Just like the women and blacks you reference, I have done nothing to deserve to be treated any less than anyone else. To treat me worse in some effort to make up for past sins is as bad as the white males who committed those sins.

And I didn't intend to imply that you're cool with opressing women/blacks. I don't think that's your problem. The problem instead is that you think that white men are on the same level as non-whites and women, so if we just make the same rules apply to everyone things will be solved. Because of the heteronormativity that just isn't the case, though. The heteronormativity is (pretty much) a set of unwritten rules for how we are to treat other pepole in society, and it has different rules for white men than for others.
We have laws in place to address that and the progress the world has seen in the past 40 years is evidence enough that things have changed a lot. Perfectly equal yet? Of course not. There are numerous other things not relating to any prejudice that inhibit that, but again devaluing one segment of society is no better than devaluing any other. It's the old adage: Two wrongs don't make a right.

It's one of my favorite thing about Scandinavia: secondary education truly is avaliable to all. And thus we don't have those loads of pepole complaining about how they can't get through college because of their financial situation.
I'd be interested to learn the economics of it. From what people in the UK have told me, the structure of secondary education is very different in most of Europe compared to the US. I'm curious how that affects the cost.


I suspect it's because it's financial aid and absolutely nothing else. It doesn't adress why the recipients are in a situation where they need welfare/medicade, and thus won't end up being more than symptom treatment in a lot of cases.
Definitely some. There also, at least prior to Clinton, was the issue that people immediately lost public assistance once they got a job, and often that job netted them less money.

————————————————-

"Ya'll can go to HELL! I'm-a-goin' to TEXAS!"

- Davy Crockett
blatantninja is offline

blatantninja

blatantninja's Avatar
Resident Redneck Facist

#78

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 4,020

Default 

October 7th, 2011, 20:10
Originally Posted by blatantninja View Post
That's a fair question, but again, most of them either dress as male or female.
Yeah, and which one depends on if their parents view them as male or female. Doesn't that make you wonder how closely tied sex really is to gender, when someone of both sexes always ends up as the gender their parents see them? If it was something biological, shouldn't about half of them rebell and turn into the other gender?

Originally Posted by blatantninja View Post
Because blue and brown eyes is a very minor difference. It's coloring, not a different in body/brain chemistry, sexual organs, etc.
Difference in sexual organs isn't enough to explain why men like blue and women like pink. Brain chemistry might explain it, if it weren't for us not having been able to figure out what these difference mean in practise.

Besides, the variations are bigger within the genders than between them, which is why making these difference basis for separating between pepole rather arbitrary. Why separate between pepole who has different genitals but not pepole who has different eye colours? Or what about left and right handed pepole?

Originally Posted by blatantninja View Post
It's pretty simple. You treat people equally.
…yeah, well, that's kind of the problem: we don't treat pepole equally. And to start doing so is not simple at all, because the reason we don't is because of the way we interpret the world at a base level. From day one you get signals that men and women aren't quite the same, and from that day forward you get taught about what separates them. When you meet and evaluate someone these "insights" will play in, and thus you'll treat the person differently depending on if the person is a man or a woman. Your expectations will differ, and you're more inclined to be critical to said person's behavior if s/he's doing something someone of the person's sex doesn't traditionally do.

Since you're not aware of this you won't end up treating women normally. You think that when you slam a female for doing something it's perfectly fair, because you'd do the same if it was a man doing it. The thing is that you won't - the man has to do far more to get the same reaction from you. And vice versa.

Originally Posted by blatantninja View Post
You don't belittle one group just because historically they ran the show. I'm a white male. Just like the women and blacks you reference, I have done nothing to deserve to be treated any less than anyone else. To treat me worse in some effort to make up for past sins is as bad as the white males who committed those sins.
Awknowledging what I said above is not "belittering one group". Nobody's blaming white men for this situation. (…correction, nobody besides Radical Feminists.) It's not white mens' fault, and this isn't punishment. Saying this belitters white men is like saying putting someone with a highly contagious disease in quarantine belitters the sick person.

It's a mean to get around a problem, not punishment. But let's say we don't do this, what's your suggestion to prevent that we (unknowingly) treat blacks and women like this? That we just do it? We don't work like that, I'm afraid.


You're also mistaken if you think they're doing this because of what's happened in the past. They're doing it because of the difficulties women and blacks have being heard today, not because of how white men treated these groups in the past.

Originally Posted by blatantninja View Post
I'd be interested to learn the economics of it. From what people in the UK have told me, the structure of secondary education is very different in most of Europe compared to the US. I'm curious how that affects the cost.
I'm afraid I can't be of much help there. I basically know that univerisies are funded by taxes and that we get grants/loans from CSN (Centrala Studiestödsnämnden - National Board of Student Aid). CSN is (for obvious reasons) a non-profit organisation, which might do something to keep costs down for students (then again, it's hard to tell how well managed state institutions are).

Originally Posted by blatantninja View Post
Definitely some. There also, at least prior to Clinton, was the issue that people immediately lost public assistance once they got a job, and often that job netted them less money.
A great way to encourage pepole to get jobs, that… "You can either work for $600/month or do nothing for $800/month. So, what's your choice?"

Übereil

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.

H. L. Mencken

The Chaos Cascade
Ubereil is offline

Ubereil

Ubereil's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#79

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,263

Default 

October 7th, 2011, 22:24
Originally Posted by Ubereil View Post
Yeah, and which one depends on if their parents view them as male or female. Doesn't that make you wonder how closely tied sex really is to gender, when someone of both sexes always ends up as the gender their parents see them? If it was something biological, shouldn't about half of them rebell and turn into the other gender?
I wouldn't think so, we're wired to think either as men or women. Certainly not everyone, but the majority of people.


Difference in sexual organs isn't enough to explain why men like blue and women like pink. Brain chemistry might explain it, if it weren't for us not having been able to figure out what these difference mean in practise.
I'm not referring to something as superficial as color preferences. Obviously culture has a huge impact on that. Most just the way our brains think. Instincts, chemistry, etc. tend to lend men to think and behave, at a general level, in different ways than women on the whole across cultures.

Besides, the variations are bigger within the genders than between them, which is why making these difference basis for separating between pepole rather arbitrary. Why separate between pepole who has different genitals but not pepole who has different eye colours? Or what about left and right handed pepole?
Because eye color doesn't effect how my brain works.

…yeah, well, that's kind of the problem: we don't treat pepole equally. And to start doing so is not simple at all, because the reason we don't is because of the way we interpret the world at a base level. From day one you get signals that men and women aren't quite the same, and from that day forward you get taught about what separates them. When you meet and evaluate someone these "insights" will play in, and thus you'll treat the person differently depending on if the person is a man or a woman. Your expectations will differ, and you're more inclined to be critical to said person's behavior if s/he's doing something someone of the person's sex doesn't traditionally do.
I agree it is not perfect, I just don't think the solution is to try to just turn the tables on one group simply because it benefited before. Strive for equality, not revenge.

Since you're not aware of this you won't end up treating women normally. You think that when you slam a female for doing something it's perfectly fair, because you'd do the same if it was a man doing it. The thing is that you won't - the man has to do far more to get the same reaction from you. And vice versa.
I disagree with that wholeheartedly. Sure, some people are like that, but I have been managed by both men and women and I have managed both men and women, and haven't seen that at all.

Awknowledging what I said above is not "belittering one group". Nobody's blaming white men for this situation. (…correction, nobody besides Radical Feminists.) It's not white mens' fault, and this isn't punishment. Saying this belitters white men is like saying putting someone with a highly contagious disease in quarantine belitters the sick person.
Yes they are. This whole 'progressive stack' concept is designed to punish white men for the sins of our fathers.

It's a mean to get around a problem, not punishment. But let's say we don't do this, what's your suggestion to prevent that we (unknowingly) treat blacks and women like this? That we just do it? We don't work like that, I'm afraid.
My solution is pretty simple, when you see someone being treating differently because of their sex/race/etc., stand up and say something.

You're also mistaken if you think they're doing this because of what's happened in the past. They're doing it because of the difficulties women and blacks have being heard today, not because of how white men treated these groups in the past.
That's contradicts what they said in the article on the 'progressive stack'. It was specifically because of the 'historic' advantages we white men have enjoyed. Even so, just because a black woman feels like she has been disadvantaged in her life, for instance, doesn't not give her any right to try to disadvantage me.


A great way to encourage pepole to get jobs, that… "You can either work for $600/month or do nothing for $800/month. So, what's your choice?"

Übereil
I've been trying to get paid more to do nothing for years! No luck so far.

————————————————-

"Ya'll can go to HELL! I'm-a-goin' to TEXAS!"

- Davy Crockett
blatantninja is offline

blatantninja

blatantninja's Avatar
Resident Redneck Facist

#80

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 4,020
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » The Wall Street Occupation
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 05:08.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch